Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30940245›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2019

Reductionism in retreat.

Denny Borsboom, Angélique O J Cramer, Annemarie Kalis

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Belief traps: Tackling the inertia of harmful beliefs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Denny BorsboomDepartment of Psychology,University of Amsterdam,1018 WT Amsterdam,The Netherlands.d.borsboom@uva.nlhttps://www.dennyborsboom.com.
Angélique O J CramerDepartment of Methodology and Statistics,Tilburg University,5000 LE Tilburg,The Netherlands.aoj.cramer@gmail.comhttps://www.aojcramer.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2128-0331
Annemarie KalisDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies,Utrecht University,3512 BL Utrecht,The Netherlands.A.Kalis@uu.nlhttps://www.uu.nl/staff/AKalis.ORCID 0000-0001-8574-492X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We address the commentaries on our target article in terms of four major themes. First, we note that virtually all commentators agree that mental disorders are not brain disorders in the common interpretation of these terms, and establish the consensus that explanatory reductionism is not a viable thesis. Second, we address criticisms to the effect that our article was misdirected or aimed at a straw man; we argue that this is unlikely, given the widespread communication of reductionist slogans in psychopathology research and society. Third, we tackle the question of whether intentionality, extended systems, and multiple realizability are as problematic as claimed in the target article, and we present a number of nuances and extensions with respect to our article. Fourth, we discuss the question of how the network approach should incorporate biological factors, given that wholesale reductionism is an unlikely option.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersResearchAnimalsModels, AnimalPsychopathology

Identifiers

PMID30940245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.