Examples would be great! I'm very curious about how it could reject probability & Bayesianism but still have use for science.
We now know that NHST isn’t that, and in fact anyone who cared enough to investigate would have found this at any time since it was invented, but hardly anyone did. And I think it’s fair to blame rationalism for that. It’s straight out of the tail end of logical positivism, >
-
-
> when they finally reluctantly admitted that there was no criterion for definitely accepting a scientific theory, and switched to a probabilistic framework.
-
I'll buy that. The prevalence of that was probably a little different in biomed vs math/CS, too. So, if we want to improve reproducibility, does EM have suggestions about what to do differently from what we're now doing?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.