... whether they are amateurs: they will often have 2 learn a little about statistics first, or collaborate with someone who can run some of the basic tests; but as I wrote in my thread, the standard way of using stats in medicine & psychology produces loads of type 1 errors ..
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... as 4 Hypatia, however, I take it 1 of co-authors is professional philosopher, so that wouldn't be an amateur. For other journals, if they had novel quantitative methods you had to first learn (to the level of a typical NHST user), might've taken u a bit longer, but not much
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... anyway, I already said in my original tweet that there *may* be an asymmetry in terms of average epistemological rigor required to publish in a top journal in gender studies vs. medicine, but your hoax doesn't show that. Just for a few examples, here is a paper in a ...
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... and here is a paper of mine critiquing a study published by pretty smart researchers in the Journal of Urology - a top journal - for making truly astonishing errors in statistical interpretation and reasoning https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tre.531 …
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... I could copy in dozens of more examples, but I referred to the 'replication crisis' generally because it is, well, a general problem. So I see your hoax as caught on the horns of a dilemma: if your point was that a person can, in bad faith, trick a small number of ...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
You could reply with dozens of examples. I could send you thousands of grievance studies papers. Most of the canon, in fact. As you said, one really only needs to read the papers that are there to see the problem exists.
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames
Okay, so then we agree that your hoax showed nothing new. As for 'most of the canon,' that seems strong. I've read a lot of it, and there is a good deal of work that, if approached charitably (rather than with the goal of mocking it), can open up useful avenues of thought
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
It wasn't meant to "show something new," and we never insisted it was. Hell, man, this was pointed out repeatedly at book length in the 1990s. The problem is that no one is paying it the attention it deserves. We sought to fix that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames
I agree that your project brought a lot of attention to some of the problems that exist in some fields. I am doubtful that you convinced many who didn't already agree with you, however, so while a lot of heat has been generated, I don't know if much light has
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
From the private communications I've been receiving, it's likely to be a setup for a backdraft. Something will come along eventually now, I suspect, break a window, flood the space with oxygen, and the whole thing will blow the eff up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Okay but again I'm concerned about your approach to representativeness, base rates, and so on. Presumably, the private communication *you* are getting is not representative of the private communication *being sent* about your hoax
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.