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. 
-
-
-
over matters that lack substance, serving as a perfect excuse for petty skirmishes and for bullying other scientists.
-
If the open science movement wishes to convince the community, beyond exerting its lobbying, which it certainly has, then intimidation attitudes should be controlled from within.
-
I mean I'm muted, but even though I do not think Ben and those who agree with him want confirmatory research to be the only thing that is published in journals... I totally see why he thinks we do think that: Because some literally have said that!
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691612463078 … -
This is very twisted rhetoric. Modelling doesn't work if we apply rules from empirical research.
-
I had the same sense: too little building of common ground. Engaging with the modeling community on questions of open science takes a different mindset and awareness of the intrinsic limitations of practices built on empiricist concerns only.
-
And even when it will happen, as I expect it now certainly will after last few days of twitter discussions about Shiffrin’s and Van Zandt’s talks, I preregister the prediction that the adjusted narrative will just be slightly less oversimplified.
-
100% with you. This BS in this thread and elsewhere is their attempt at rewriting history.
- 20 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.