Yes that's exactly my point. The judgment of quality (and thus reward system) should always boil down to question and method and never whether the result is interesting, surprising etc.
-
-
Sure, but theory is also judged against the intuition of the community. The theories themselves might be formal, but the evaluation of whether they are a contribution is up to the wisdom of the scientific crowd. I'm not saying this is ideal, I just don't see a better approach.
-
I may be wrong, but I thought the higher point herein was that intuitions can change and should be changed — and different things can be weighted differently. One thing that sticks out is the lack of a heavy weight on a good theory (however evaluated) in the above tweets.
-
Agreed. And the community would need more/different training in theory to be able to develop better intuitions about quality of theory and theoretical research. At present that training is largely lacking IMHO.
-
Theory, the forgotten relative in the drive to increase reproducibility and replicability
-
Truer words were never tweeted.
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.