Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
briandavidearp's profile
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
@briandavidearp

Tweets

Brian D. Earp

@briandavidearp

@Yale; @UniofOxford; @hastingscenter; @TheAtlantic - psychology, philosophy of science, bioethics, tech, politics, gender and sexuality, etc. RT ≠ endorsement.

oxford.academia.edu/BrianEarp
Joined July 2011

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28

      James Lindsay Retweeted Brian D. Earp

      If you can't see how the dog-humping paper is ridiculous, you're part of the problem.https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056627434211213314 …

      James Lindsay added,

      Brian D. Earp @briandavidearp
      Replying to @ConceptualJames
      When I have some extra time, I may give the paper a read. I don't know how to evaluate a paper in terms of supposed ridiculousness based on punch-line style conclusions designed to come across as ridiculous.
      4 replies 20 retweets 142 likes
    2. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames

      I haven't read the dog-humping paper. But if you're saying that, unless I reach the same conclusion as the one you intended (if I do read it), I am part of the problem, that is not a very fruitful dialectical tactic. In fact, it means, "the paper is ridiculous" is unfalsifiable.

      2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
    3. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

      Our study sought to test whether we could get a journal to accept a paper which claimed it could detect human rape culture by watching dogs unwanted humping and then advocate ways to train men like dogs. It did. We do see a problem with that. We know others don't. Maybe you.

      2 replies 4 retweets 25 likes
    4. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
      Replying to @HPluckrose @briandavidearp

      It's getting especially amusing to me to watch this thread play out (and Brian's retweets) knowing he hasn't really the faintest idea of what's actually in the dog-humping paper. If I were him, I'd shut up until I read it and its reviews, but hey.

      2 replies 2 retweets 21 likes
    5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose

      I don't understand the tendency to overstatement. I read the dog park paper when it first came out & received attention. I didn't scrutinize it at the time as it seemed a curiosity, but I did take in the main points. "[not] the faintest idea" is simply false.

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    6. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose

      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

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

      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.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose

      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

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

      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."

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose

      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

      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose

      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

      4:47 PM - 28 Oct 2018 from Bronx, NY
      • 1 Like
      • Mathew Toll
      0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2018 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info