I really can’t see the one clear distinction others apparently can. I see multiple overlapping and correlated distinctions in Dani’s thread, and think there’s a lot to unpack. 1/2
I can't tell if we're on the same page. But yes, pragmatics of words is real, I agree.
-
-
I think there's two perspectives here. I'm not dogmatic about either one. I'm usually pragmatic when I teach or communicate ("this is black"), and focused on spotting connections between seemingly disparate phenomena when I lay awake at night ("any color - all light = black
") -
That was my point. What's important here though is to understand that there are people out there who deny that there are coherent groupings of modelling. Those are who we need to reach.
-
The space of modelling and stats work is inherently structured around coherent types of modeling and stats. Those who run ANOVAs on their data and those who run cognitive models are different regardless of the spectrum between them.
-
I only do cog modelling and don't do data collection or stats analyses as inferential statistics, so I am like the total odd-one-out sometimes in psych/cogsci. In the same way modelling might seem strange to non-modellers, some of the assumptions like in NHST seem bonkers to me.
-
Unless those who do stats analyses of data think, for example, participants are like an ANOVA in a theoretically meaningful way (as opposed to seeing the ANOVA as a tool for understanding the data), there's a really important difference between that and cognitive modelling.
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.