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...
-
-
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
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.
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.