Yes, I have seen the editorial. It's an interesting start, but can go much further.
-
-
They can mute and block us all. They are the ones missing out either way because they don't understand how we do science.
-
Unfortunately they're largely dominating the narrative (at least in the Twitter bubble). I am used to modelling lurking in the shadows, respected, but not widely acknowledged. That said, the highest levels of neuroscience typically focus on modelling (e.g. FIL, Gatbsy)
-
The field is obviously rupturing then.
-
To be clear, "don't care" = don't care if they think I'm arguing in bad faith, etc. I do care VERY MUCH about the science.
-
I think some don’t follow how often we get “ofc you must prereg” or “prereg is for all exploratory research” comments, whenever we talk abt modeling work that doesn’t fit their mold. Insisting that it’s us who misunderstand the intentions of prereg folks is kinda gaslighting.
-
There are prob misunderstandings and overgeneralizations on all sides. I’m glad at least some understanding has been reached among some folks even though the bad faith arguments still exist. e.g., what Danielle discusses here: https://twitter.com/djnavarro/status/1064481703974957057?s=21 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Reposting an invitation to people in this (sprawling) conversation!https://twitter.com/melissaekline/status/1064555044966678529 …
- 3 more replies
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.

