Honestly? No idea.
-
-
From there, they then take an additional police style approach. Resulting in telling people who do science a very different way to essentially stop.
-
It's really baffling. Nothing like "I don't like modelling". More like "I'm going to halt all these forms of modelling and not listen to you because my subfield has a problem..."
-
I think that implication may not really be the intention, but the side effect of how some areas of psychology have been trying to clean up their problems. It is good that problems are addressed. Threat I see for (psych) science is the overextension of the proposed "solutions".
-
I ask myself why response to Shiffrin & Van Zandt was so strong. Why would e.g. social, dev, evo psychology object to views coming from mathematical psychology & cognitive science. Why not listen with interest to learn *why* these fields may have different view on things?
-
I just listened to Rich's talk on Youtube (from a conference on replicability, I presume it's the same talk although I wasn't at psychonomics), and I found it to be very nuanced and well reasoned. It wasn't "prereg is useless", but that it will be harmful to make it mandatory
-
Which fit very well with some of my posts on the subject, i.e. "let's think about how and under what conditions it is a useful thing to do" and not "ugh, it's not science if not done this way"
-
To be honest with you I'm a bit sick of "psychology has a replication crisis". Social has deep issues, for example, but I have no idea why they think the crisis applies to modelling in the same way. That is not to say replications are all perfect in modelling though either.
-
All these blanket statements about the field which assume modelling is either identical to other subfields or non-existent have reached a point now where it's become the norm. It's just not what the field is like.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes this is exactly what I was referring to when I said this was not merely about not understanding the other subfield but was rather reflective of a more fundamental difference in how we approach problems.
-
Agreed but the problem arises in my opinion when these fundamental differences in our understanding on how science works are ignored and value judgements are made.
-
The irony is I think they value our field because they perceive it as prestigious.
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.