In this (open access!) paper we argue: commonly accepted scientific norms suggest rules for how cooperating scientists should decide which of their results they ought publish, and judgement aggregation theory gives tools to study how these rules interact. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-017-9887-1/fulltext.html?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @lastpositivist
Very cool. Looking forward to reading this. Question: Do you have advice for experimenters who collect data together, implicitly disagree about the stopping rule to use (which they do not discuss until starting analysis), and coincidentally want to stop at the same time?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Prof_Livengood
"You should probably have discussed your stopping rule in advance."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Prof_Livengood
So more seriously, in the paper we are largely considering cases where people have the evidence or arguments before them but don't agree on what's publication worthy, and I am worried that questions of what evidence to gather in the first place introduces its own complexities.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lastpositivist
I guess what I want to know is whether intention-aggregation (for collective actions) is analogous to judgment-aggregation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Ah, hmm! I have to go out now, but my first instinct on seeing this was to go search Christian List's website. I guess you can do this as well as I can! http://personal.lse.ac.uk/list/research.htm …
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.