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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Sorry, I was conscious of this even as I was typing 'exploratory', 'confirmatory' etc. - it's buying into an already-skewed narrative.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @mc_hankins @o_guest and
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
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @mc_hankins @o_guest and
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
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @mc_hankins @o_guest and
My perception is that when social psychologists noticed that other experimental fields shared the same problems (p-hacking etc) and proposed their solutions, it was received well. So now they’re encouraged to overgeneralize both the problems and the solutions w/o much thought.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve @mc_hankins and
But also many seem to be logical empiricists and either deny or ignore the existence of other philosophies of science even in their own parent field. I have noticed that many prominent names talk about saving “science” rather than certain problems with certain types of science.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve @mc_hankins and
I believe there is a need to understand that evaluating a model cannot rely on quantitative analysis only, it requires consideration of many factors, both technical and logical. Their very essence embeds the choices scientists make
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
which reflect what we consider relevant beyond the mere quantitative (and I cannot believe I'm saying this
)1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes
It's hilarious because it started with cogsci/cogpsych (Hal Pashler, David Shanks, etc.) people looking at social and then social started looking more and more at itself.
-
-
Yes! A couple of years ago, I met David and he was really concerned about the direction this was taking.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
In part he (and others) looked into them so now they are looking into everything. Not exactly revenge, but I mean... something is going wrong here.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.