I'll let Iris clarify, but I suspect she means a specific brand of open science. Other fields, for example, do not have the specific type of very very empirical non-modeling take on open science that our field has taken.
-
-
Possibly the (mis)perception in psych that indeed OS is a response to the replication crisis, and serves that purpose specifically, is part of what is now creating these problems that I am alluding to?
-
Thanks for that- I'll have some reading to do!
-
My impression (perhaps wrongly) was that the psych community was particularly receptive to OS concepts because of the replication crisis. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that parts of psych are taking a too narrow view of OS?
-
Yes, I am saying that most prominent advocates of OS in psych science take a too narrow view of open psych science.
-
So what does open science modelling/theory look like?
-
What do you think it should look like?
-
I guess I’m asking what do you want that isn’t part of the current OS approach?
-
Have you read my concerns above? What I want is *not* that. Not asking for anything else at the moment. OS modelers are developing suitable practices, tools, ways of working and thinking, but it requires not being blocked by inappropriate empiricist criteria.
- 1 more reply
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.