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.
-
-
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.
-
I am genuinely open to listening to them. I wish their would empirisplain (LOL) all their ideologies to me, instead of assuming I think they are all for confirmatory blah blah. It's just the BS about me arguing in bad faith, it's just too ridiculous.
-
Ben has no clue what I am thinking and thinks I am somehow aware and follow all their little "the field must do this" backchannel BS. I don't, I just see that they all make pronouncements about the field ostensibly that are WAY oversimplified AND utterly wrong for modelling work.
-
At the end of the day, if they want to leave many/all cog modellers "behind" and we can just be let alone to do modelling work that is OK with me. I have been doing modelling replications ALL my scientific career. I know what state my (sub*)field is in. *Kleene star
-
It seems to me that some people have taken control of a movement that in principle could have been good for science, twisting it to their liking without giving to it much thought (best case scenario) and/or with an specific power agenda. >>
-
The only way I can think of to counteract their lobbying is to build another position of strength, which will most probably lead to a "civil war". Alternatively, we can try to ignore it and hope that eventually ppl understand that each branch or research has its own idiosyncrasy.
- 15 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I never claimed their view is what that article says, even though Ben claims I did. My problem with their views is more general.
-
Also to be clear I am for open science and do open science 100%. These people and their behaviour do not represent me.
-
Twisting rhetoric and pretending to listen when just putting words in other person's mind and mouth are the refuge of the ideologically weak. If you have a substantive point, make it. Otherwise, take your empirical ass out of my modelling work. No pasaran. JKJKJK but srs.

-
Love the "No pasarán" ;) but you know, unfortunately pasaron!
-
Just antifa jokes.

-
I know! But it is the motto used while defending Madrid against the fascists during the Spanish Civil war.
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.