1/ Most of the time, when I try to replicate the statistical analysis in a paper, I find errors. - Most are trivial; - Some are not. No one is really immune from the former variety because, - There's too little time; and, - Publish-or-perish. It's a recipe for haste.
-
-
3/ This analogy is useful to me when evaluating claims outside of my domain. If I read an abstract and can't decide if the uncovered effect is surprising, then I know my priors are too weak to guard against errors that wouldn't mislead domain experts. Danger: Here Be Dragons!
Show this thread -
4/ As a corollary, when I see someone touting some hot paper as strong evidence supporting a position they claim is heterodox without relating it to the orthodoxy, I just assume they're full of shit. Implicitly, they claim the paper *is* the complete terrain.
Show this thread -
5/ This is a really round about way of saying: I can't believe I'm still seeing posts about the Sokal Squared bullshit. The perpetrators of that hoax imagine themselves Galileo valiantly exclaiming, "and yet it moves!" But, really, they're the church.
Show this thread -
6/ (P.S. Publish and perish does do harm by constraining the set of administratively admissible problems -- overly small ones.)
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.