Conversation

David Chapman
@Meaningness
There is no “correct” statistical method. You have to *actually do science* if you want to figure stuff out. Science can't be reduced to any fixed method, nor evaluated by any fixed criterion. It *uses* methods and criteria; it is not defined or limited by them.
Image
14
330
'(·)
@allgebrah
Replying to
@Meaningness
What parts are left out then if you reduce science to the scientific method? The culture around it? Or is there no scientific method as such?
1
'(·)
@allgebrah
Replying to
@Meaningness
As in "there are many methods and there is no coherence to them", "no single method could hope to capture all empirically accessible knowledge", and/or in another way? (Is there a longform piece about it? Especially the latter version feels technical to show)
1
1
'(·)
@allgebrah
Replying to
@Meaningness
sidenote, I'm pretty sure there's ethnographies of scientists doing their thing, a friend of mine did pretty much that when she studied an academic supercomputer's administration and crew (iirc it was that)
1
1
David Chapman
@Meaningness
Replying to
@allgebrah
Yes, I’ve read some of that literature, and it is fascinating. One good guy in the field is Charles Goodwin; I was reading his stuff just before my mom’s situation went critical
1
1
Show replies