Some in this conversation think @richarddmorey is worried abt possible future that's very unlikely. I don't understand. I think the concerns are reasonable & we *already* have a scientific culture that is inflexible in how we think/talk about good (empirical) research. #psprereghttps://twitter.com/richarddmorey/status/1085552009623887874 …
-
-
While I have opinions (of course), I also don't think it's my place to tell you how do your science. I am not a big fan of prescriptivism — in most cases, I think it's misplaced. And I don't think science is a monolith.
-
I know you haven't said this here yourself, but I wanted to super clarify where I am coming from. I think it's a tricky situation where there is a culture clash on quite a few different levels.
-
I'm both a comp modeller (who doesn't care — on some level — what stats people do) and I do not believe in telling people how to do their science generally (so I don't think it's useful to dictate in a very rigidi way to others how to do stuff).
-
I'm way more interested in stopping the prescriptivist culture, than I am in p-values or BFs. I feel like people telling others how to do research that the former don't even do, and are not experts in, is a strange and perhaps slippery slope.
-
Hope that helps clarify my position. I think yours is that you are very interested in having a "what methods are appropriate" debate for the stats people use on their empirical data. And I don't really have any skin in that game.
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.