-
-
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
It boils down to a deep misunderstanding of how to/we do modelling.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Thanks for the links. I'd go further: a deep misunderstanding of how science is done. What a load of parochial, self-serving nonsense.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @mc_hankins @o_guest and
So, anyway: does anyone know of anything approaching a comprehensive review of (a) what problems we're trying to solve (in this respect) and (b) what solutions have been proposed? Rather than piecemeal, domain-specific stuff?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
I was thinking broader, but more along exploratory lines than confirmatory
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mc_hankins @o_guest and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @mc_hankins and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @o_guest and
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?)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mc_hankins @bradpwyble and
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...
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I don't mean in this thread, just to be clear. I mean the wider debate that is mainly about social — I have no idea what or why they are doing with it. The framing might apply to their work, but to mine & to my understanding of the field & science generally, it's just all so off.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @mc_hankins and
Relatedly, I don't find the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory very useful for modelling purposes.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Yep, because it's nearly all theory driven and thus more like confirmatory work.. but abductive work doesn't work in the realm of confirm/deny.
0 replies 2 retweets 3 likes
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.