Thanks again for your thoughtful thread!
-
-
IMHO that tweet (and thread) you linked me linked to is a great example.
-
Nobody can say how those two tweets should be interpreted. You're saying they are not how I read them. Tell us how you read them.

-
That all work should be published (it says that explicitly) but that if there is a place for journals and pre-pub peer review it is providing the administrative infrastructure for RRs (which aren’t only for confirmatory testing).
-
Many people have clarified these points to you now, including several on the thread you linked to.
-
You are pretty clearly being disingenuous with your bad-faith take that this is some sort push to impose confirmatory testing on everyone, since you’ve kept going with that interpretation even when people have explicitly said it isn’t and have explained what it is.
-
I can see how you might have equated ‘journal’ with ‘publish’ and ‘RR’ with ‘confirmatory’ without pausing for thought, but persisting with that reading of it when people have clarified those misunderstandings isn’t helpful.
-
I think our misunderstandings are way deeper. Those are not the differences in our readings from my perspective. Firstly, I thought you all loved Popper? So falsificationism is more your thing, right? Secondly, are you saying publish is being inclusive of preprints? Can't tell.
- 33 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.
