Beyond Eyeball Tests: A Methodical Rebuttal to Fillon et al.'s Commentary.

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Meta-science

Background:

• Original study linked obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptom severity to radical intentions across diverse U.S. samples.
• Obsessive passion was identified as a partial or full mediator in these associations.
• A recent commentary challenged the original findings, alleging methodological flaws and researcher flexibility.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the meta-scientific critique by Fillon et al. (2024).
• To reaffirm the robustness of the original findings on OCD, radical intentions, and obsessive passion.
• To highlight issues in meta-scientific critique, including misinterpretation and speculative claims.

Main Methods:

• Rigorous re-analyses of the original data.
• Critical examination of the commentary's claims and methodologies.
• Assessment of the critique's reliance on visual data inspection and speculative assumptions.

Main Results:

• The original findings linking OCD symptom severity and radical intentions, mediated by obsessive passion, were reaffirmed.
• The critique by Fillon et al. was demonstrated to be based on unsupported claims and flawed meta-scientific practices.
• Allegations of methodological errors and excessive researcher flexibility in the original study were refuted.

Conclusions:

• The original study's findings are robust and supported by rigorous re-analyses.
• Meta-scientific critiques require domain-specific expertise and should avoid speculative and unsupported claims.
• This exchange underscores the importance of evidence-based discourse in scientific debate and the need for high standards in both research and its critique.