The same criticism on such either or thinking applies IMHO when the word "open" is inserted above too. To evaluate a complex system it needs to be run (simulated or empirically).
I'm a modeller though, of course I'd say that. 
-
-
I don't think we (none of the mentioned people herein) disagree. However, IMHO the "way we do science" pertains more to the scientific method. And I know, it can be more broad, but I do often dissociate between "the method" (indeed methods, plural) and peer review, etc.
-
That being said, they (the methods, the reviewing paradigms) are all truly "the way we do science". And the lines are getting even more blurred vis-a-vis by above dissociation since RRR and pre-reg generally affect both publication methods and research methods.
-
*by = my Also just wanna say, great conversation, you all!

-
Right back at you! You always provide a different perspective and make me think

-
:) Find it both interesting - and useful - to separate these aspects of "doing science" out like that,
@o_guest - thanks for that! > -
These days I do no research - rather I'm working with the researchers, funders, admin, finance, etc., so what I see (and think of) when it comes to "how science is done" is about the scientists, how they interact with each other and other stakeholders, the politics involved etc
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.