Philosophy Versus Science

[GrandizerII]

I agree they should’ve provided some details in the text on what was done to determine no interaction effect. They do provide enough details for replicability, but they should have made more space to address the first part of your critique properly.

As to the rest of what you said, every study has its limitations (and quite a number are acknowledged in this study) and we have to be careful not to exaggerate or overgeneralise these findings. However, I still think they took great care with their work, and I don’t see any signs of deception in what they said. The data is there anyway, if another researcher wants to attempt to replicate the findings themselves.

We'll have to agree to differ. IMO, that's a pretty disreputable junk study. Their biggest sins are explaining their methodology only in passing, if at all, and failing to show any of their work. To me, that's just another baseless opinion

I don’t understand what you mean by “failing to show any of their work”? The data has been linked to (though you may have to pay to access some of it, like they did), the methodology is described in Sections 4 and 5, the code they used for analysis is linked to, results are reported and analysed, and there are tables and diagrams and an appendix.

I mean, sure, they don’t show the statistical tests in full detail, but that’s standard, and there may be some word limit imposed anyway.

Again, any researcher who is suspicious can test their findings using the same data and details they have provided.