Sounds like even though they admitted flaws in intellect and theorizing, they focused only on potential ways that good-faith attempts at understanding truth could go wrong, without accounting for career incentives pushing towards publications over truth
One of many gems in @fidlerfm's history of stat reform in psychology: Kuhn and Lakatos assumed scientists would argue with ideas they disagree with. Didn't anticipate that, faced with ideas they couldn't refute, scientists would just passively ignore them https://fionaresearch.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fidler-phd-2006.pdf …pic.twitter.com/A4zZNALb29
-
-
-
Just shows what an... ahem... paradigm shift it has been in the practice and philosophy of science in the last 7 or so years
-
Yep, the turn to practice has been (in my opinion) a good move for Phil of Sci.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The absence of active disagreement remains sociology of science wonderment.
-
It's even worse when it's outsiders/stigmatised patients raise concerns. In the case of the PACE trial controversy researchers claimed debate in the House of Lords was an example of 'harassment'. Really harmful to let this mentality continue. https://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/major-breaktn-pace-trial/00296.html …pic.twitter.com/zG6OmdXQkz
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Psychological scientists themselves are not very self-aware when it comes to the way their field practices science. Yet we have a much better understanding of how humans make decisions than to naïvely think that researchers will act rationally in these circumstances.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
People are even taught to write this way: gather resources that verify your point of view. Don't address the critics. It's more public relations than science.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you perhaps being too unrealistic in the timescale? I mean, even before Lakatos and Kuhn, Planck said "science advances one funeral at a time". I don't think a model of "reformers change made-up minds" is what any of these people believed. 1/
-
Are you asking whether I have an unrealistic time scale? I was describing in the early to mid 2000s a statistical reform that started in the 1960s (some would say 1950s). Many would argue there’s still too little change on this front an additional decade and a half later still.
-
Are you starting your clock at the right point? Obviously I don't know EXACTLY what you have in mind, but as an outsider, I've only seen discussion of "reproduction crisis in psychology" and "p-hacking" and suchlike over, perhaps the last ten years.
-
The work Sanjay referred to is about statistical reform—ie., criticisms of null hypothesis significance and calls for change to that practice. Related to, but predating, the ‘replication crisis’.
-
But that's a much trickier issue. In a sense that's a claim that "my philosophy is better than your philosophy" with rather squishy reasons for *why* it's "better". I'm not surprised that that has not gained traction until the EVIDENCE of "better" mounted. 1/
-
Evidence being multi-dimensional but including things like the payoff from Bayes in a variety of EE and compute disciplines, and the pathologies that significance testing has led to (replication, p-hacking, publication bias, the damn use of that word "significance"), ... //
-
Point is, I'm not surprised by this slow pickup, and I find it hard to be outraged by it. It's natural to wish that the right methodology and results were picked up earlier, but I can't be upset at a discipline not rushing to something new BEFORE there was compelling justificatio
-
Got it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scientists for more than 70 years have been actively arguing, debating, pondering, refuting interpretations of quantum mechanics. Debate, differences, rancor, advocacy, politics is alive an well in the physical sciences.
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.