People might have been used to following a hypothesis testing script in their papers, and now need to learn how to write an exploratory paper. Journals will need to learn how to evaluate these papers. We can learn from papers in the 50's which were often much more exploratory.
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.