You disagree with what?
-
-
I was thinking broader, but more along exploratory lines than confirmatory
-
There hasn't been much in the way of improving exploratory work apart from saying that we should stop framing it as confirmatory in papers, which i agree with. But the challenge is then to get journals to treat such work seriously because we're in a heavily confirmatory culture.
-
So with these changes, exploratory work pays the steepest price. We need journals to seriously commit to papers that say: here's this thing i found, it replicates but I have no idea what it means. Science used to work that way.
-
Is the journal problem parochial as well? Or have things already moved too far in that direction? I'm really just interested to learn what problems this approach is trying to solve (is it just exploratory work being falsely reported as confirmatory?)
-
I'm actually so in disagreement, deep deep disagreement with even the language used to frame this debate, that I can't even engage. I'm not trying to be funny. I'm being serious. Like the rhetorical framing is so off from my perspective, it would take an essay to unpack...
-
Sorry, I was conscious of this even as I was typing 'exploratory', 'confirmatory' etc. - it's buying into an already-skewed narrative.
-
But what problem is this narrative constructed to solve? I mean for a clinical trial you have protocol, CRF, SAP, audit trial etc. and it's clear what problems that solves and why it's appropriate
-
But how are the problems for other analysis settings characterised, and what has been proposed to solve them? So social psychology has set about cleaning house, but that's a very specific set of conditions
- 5 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.