Save

Strong Claims, Feeble Evidence: A Rejoinder to Falk et al. (2010)

In: Society & Animals
Authors:
Randy Malamud
Search for other papers by Randy Malamud in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Scott O. Lilienfeld
Search for other papers by Scott O. Lilienfeld in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ron Broglio
Search for other papers by Ron Broglio in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Nathan Nobis
Search for other papers by Nathan Nobis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Lori Marino
Search for other papers by Lori Marino in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

Abstract

The criticisms of Falk et al. (2010) are addressed, and the question of whether claims made by Falk et al. (2007) are valid is revisited. This rebuttal contends that Falk et al. (2007) misconstrue Popper’s role in philosophy of science and hence do not provide a strong test of their hypothesis. Falk et al. (2010) claim that they never made causal statements about the impact of zoo and aquarium visits in their 2007 study. Yet, this commentary shows that Falk et al. (2007) draw several unsupported, strong causal conclusions. The criticism that primary documents were not used in Marino et al. (2010) is also addressed, as this refutation demonstrates that the analysis was based on all available documents. Finally, this commentary aims, through its criticisms of Falk et al. (2007), to catalyze better-quality research on the effects of zoo and aquarium visits.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 389 79 39
Full Text Views 103 3 0
PDF Views & Downloads 44 8 0