What if the vast majority of your field's studies were underpowered & no one noticed for 50 years…because your researchers were SUPER lucky?
-
-
@themattsimpson
@sarahdoingthing Their comp sci stuff was always gimmicky rubbish1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson A certain famous “scientist” got a paper in there every month, of the form >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson “computation-related phenomenon X follows a power law, because random graphs.” I was pretty sure 100% of these were bullshit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson but never got around to debunking any of them. Was pleased by the recent-ish Shalizi paper debunking power law in general.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson I was probably unduly biased by the fact that he kept hitting on my girlfriend, however.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson (the “certain scientist” I mean, not Shalizi!)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@themattsimpson Anyway, the point is that physicist reviewers would swallow anything with a power law in it, hook, line, and sinker
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.