If you can't see how the dog-humping paper is ridiculous, you're part of the problem.https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056627434211213314 …
My initial thread was not at all about any particular paper; it was about the more general approach. When u raised more specific issues re: that particular paper, I felt I owed it 2 u not 2 conclude anything about it until I could re-read more carefully. For this I am mocked
-
-
The paper is relevant, I think. From where I sit, you seem to sorely underestimate how broken it is and in what ways, especially given the treatment it received. The reviews of it should shock you.
-
Okay. Like I said a while I back, I would be happy to discuss more once I've had the chance to read the paper more carefully, if you wanted my thoughts on specifics. Those specifics weren't relevant to the structure of my methods argument, so it felt a bit like a change of tack
-
Hmm, I think they are relevant, though, and I seem unable to communicate this to you. It's not a small thing that they thought these papers marvelous. It's clearly indicative of something. I think saying it's a special problem is warranted on those grounds, esp given "theory."
-
I think part of the source of our different intuitions is that, I have seen some *really, really* shoddy work in top journals in other fields, so for me the bar very high to show 'special shoddiness'. And a small sample size is noisy 2 interpret so hard to clear that bar
-
They honored the paper as exemplary. It's not shoddy. It's insane.
-
Okay ... let's be back in touch when I've found some time to give that paper a proper read, okay?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.