Pre-registration formalizes Type 1 error rate control in hypothesis tests. That is all. With increasing adoption, one consequence is we will see an increase in people who realize they were not testing a hypothesis at all. That is progress.
So more of a communications issue in your opinion then, I see. I guess that's actually really important because not even a disagreement can really be reached without communication and understanding. FWIW some of those in that thread have since decided to dial back their rhetoric.
-
-
That’s a really puzzling thread to bring up in this discussion and I agree doing so really highlights the core misunderstanding that I have seen at the heart of the discussions over the last few days.
-
First, the tweet explicitly says that non preregistered work should be published. Second, and as
@Lakens notes, it is absolutely not the case that the RR format is only for confirmatory research. -
TBH I'm puzzled by a lot of your threads. And I think it's correct that comms between us (communities of researches within psych/neuro) is indeed broken/breaking down.
-
To be blunt, they’d make sense to you if you’d stop thinking that these suggestions are an attempt to impose a confirmatory framework on everyone. It’s been explained repeatedly that they aren’t, so it’s getting harder and harder to believe your claim to be arguing in good faith.
-
Interesting perspective. Why and how do you think it would serve me to argue in bad faith?
-
I don't think the disagreement is really necessary here. Something went wrong somewhere in the communication, and I think both of you agree on most issues.
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.