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 @bradpwyble and
Exactly. There are two two things to bear in mind that are often left out: 1) all houses (=fields) get dirty — entropy increases; 2) no reason to assume modelling's house is THAT dirty — it's clean (given a realistic definition of clean). For 2) that doesn't mean: stop cleaning.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @mc_hankins and
For 2) also that doesn't mean we're perfect. Nobody is perfect. But we're actually pretty good, we do replications (in all senses, including re-implementations) as a matter of course.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @mc_hankins and
This is not to pat us on the back too much, but if dirt is defined in the way social defines dirt, then we're on the right track already. We have — no surprises — OTHER issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
So, just out of politeness, at the very least the conversation should be “What’s SOP for your field, and why?” before bringing the Dyson to the front door
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
I mean notice nobody talks about a file drawer or a publication bias for models... because it's a DIFFERENT kind of work. 
*deep breaths*
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.