Yes, I don’t have numbers. My impression is that it’s common, and probably a substantial majority of working scientists, but I could be wrong!
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @mrgunn
This is a pop statement of “religious” probabilistic rationalism (if I understand it, which I’m not sure I do):https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CPP2uLcaywEokFKQG/toolbox-thinking-and-law-thinking …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Having read all the above, some thoughts: a) yes, I do find the EM jargon impenetrable. b) I think, based on my experiences as a scientist & publisher, that the "religious" form rationalism is rare enough to be discounted as a major influence on how research is done.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrgunn
Re a), I seem to be doomed to be the first person to explain the point in plain English. I don’t know what monstrous sin I committed in a previous life to have been punished this way.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @mrgunn
Re b), I think the influence of ideological rationalism is pervasive and significant, but somewhat subtle; it mainly acts to prevent people from examining implicit assumptions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @mrgunn
I think the whole NHST disaster can be largely blamed on rationalism. The assumption was that, as a quasi-religious matter, there MUST be a way to get an objective belief strength (or else objective science would be impossible), so it was reasonable to assume NHST was that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @mrgunn
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, >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @mrgunn
> when they finally reluctantly admitted that there was no criterion for definitely accepting a scientific theory, and switched to a probabilistic framework.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrgunn
I don’t think so…. at least, I haven’t thought of anything! It’s applicable to discovery more than testing, I think. And it’s mostly (imo) not directly applicable. Rather, the EM understanding of “circumrationality” is an enabling condition for understanding “metarationality” >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
> which is where I think there’s a possibility of significant benefit. But EM has little if anything to say about metarationality, as far as I know / can recall off-hand.
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.