Incidentally, I was re-reading a bit about Lakatos today and happened to find an article by Meehl channeling Lakatos. Statistical testing must have been the deep learning of the 40s-70s. 3/
-
Show this thread
-
Theorists like Meehl had to promote good theory building and point out that testing statistical hypotheses did not amount to testing scientific hypotheses 4/ https://meehl.umn.edu/sites/meehl.dl.umn.edu/files/147appraisingamending.pdf …
1 reply 12 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
Quantitative researchers just assume that the domain experts are asking the right questions. They don't realize that all the years they've spent eliminating problems of mathematical underdetermination can be put to use in tackling other kinds of underdetermination in science. 5/
1 reply 8 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
Some sciences seem to be super-duper empirical. They leave theory the building to the quants, while the quants think the scientists have strong theories. A bit like what Lippmann told Poincaré about the normal law of errors. 6/pic.twitter.com/OIedcIkZkx
2 replies 13 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
So, I always find it refreshing to see scientists emphasize theory. Borsboom made a point that psychology needs more theory in "Theoretical Amnesia" http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/category/misc6.html … I really wish there were more like Kendler and Borsboom in psychiatry. 7/
1 reply 1 retweet 43 likesShow this thread -
I totally agree with the emphasis on the need for theory and the inadequacy of statistics in the recent preprint from
@djnavarro@IrisVanRooij https://psyarxiv.com/x36pz . (Although, the title didn't resonate with me as much several points made ) 8/1 reply 1 retweet 29 likesShow this thread -
Preregistration only helps to ensure that the empirical error rate for a statistical procedure matches the nominal error rate, and that effect sizes in the literature are not overinflated. Certainly useful to ensure there is a stable observation worthy of explaining. 9/
2 replies 2 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
In fields with very complex measurements like neuroimaging there are several pathways to Gettier replications — where one sees apparent replications of a really complicated result for the wrong reasons. Need theory to decide if replication was generated by the same mechanism 10/
4 replies 3 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NeuroStats
Really interesting & deep thread! “Gettier replication”—Google is failing me. Related to the “Gettier problems” in epistemology? Tx for any pointers/explanations!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
As far as I know, I am the only one who uses that phrase. I am definitely invoking the Gettier problem from epistemology here i.e a situation where you think you have a justification for something true but your justification is actually wrong i.e. "right for the wrong reasons".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Oh that’s a wonderful coinage. I will remember it for future use (with credit i hope)
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.