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 …1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
This is very twisted rhetoric. Modelling doesn't work if we apply rules from empirical research.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @o_guest and
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.
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @twitemp1 and
100% with you. This BS in this thread and elsewhere is their attempt at rewriting history.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
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
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
You may be right but that would be a terrible outcome IMO. I think modellers are amazingly more productive when we work arm-in-arm with empiricists. Otherwise it is hard to generate the data that we need.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
They want to do open data. I'll just continue to be parasite. 
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.