If you can't see how the dog-humping paper is ridiculous, you're part of the problem.https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056627434211213314 …
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 -
-
-
So, let's say I re-read the paper & it turns out that, in a way that surpasses even the worst crap I've seen in other journals, this one paper is truly quite sloppy and incoherent. I'm just not sure n = 1, no matter how egregious, can support the generalized claim u want to make
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The hoax is probably best seen as illuminating the special kind of multifaceted badness endemic in certain disciplines, rather than establishing a special degree of badness.
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.