The reason I like this argument is that it unifies and explains a _lot_ of bad behaviour. You can play methodological whack-a-mole with things like p-hacking, but if the underlying reasons remain, other problems will crop up in their place.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1) The pressure and competition to produce positive results and pub can be crippling for scientific curiousity and cooperation.. completely agreed - system needs reconfiguration in incentives and feedback loop..
-
2) That said, one issue is that - based on an assumption that there are fewer pos results than neg- what's the threshold for pubbing neg results? Peer-review of course but how to prevent the flood of neg findings submissions from overloading the system/ overwhelming researchers?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For the key word is "research administrators". Research is intrinsically bottom-up, not top-down. As long as there are administrators and managers in power, there will be pressure on scientists to reach predefined goals.
-
The other keyword is "careers". Hierarchies in academia have a similar effect as management, just milder because the goals are fuzzier and less short-term.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
what this excerpt didn't cover was when the success of a trial is promoted beyond its true accomplishment. take
#alphago. with only the basis of beating a go master as a measure of success, it ignored the constraints of processing power, learning time, and learning methods.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Need to shift to a model of resolving hypotheses + strength of evidence. Eg someone who kills a commonly held falsehood with a conclusive experiment should be revered.
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.