I’m glad you wrote lol because I couldn’t tell if that was sincere (econ humor is hard to understand sometimes
)
-
-
Same here, Rich is a well known figure in the field. I read his remarks as saying that there is an economy of trust in science and this seems obviously true. Pre-reg will not eliminate this economy either.
-
pre-registrations aren't intended to eliminate that economy, they are intended to help it function better. sort of like how regulating the rest of the economy is supposed to work too!
-
Depends on your definition of better though. Increased thresholds for signal detection reduce the hit rate as well as reducing false alarms. That's one of Rich's points IIRC.
-
No reason for it to reduce hit rate. It just means your serendipitous "hit" isn't allowed to masquerade as a hypothesis test or confidence interval.
-
I joined this thread with a joke, but seeing some earnest defenders of Shiffrin on here, I read his Psychonomic Society blog. And, I have to say, I find it appalling. I would say slippery.
-
His starting point is the exploratory nature of scientific research. Well and good, and a reason not everything can or should be pre-registered. But he rejects any line between that exploration & either testing or (as he prefers) estimation.
-
As a general thing, with no such line, if the papers he is talking about report p values or confidence intervals without being extremely clear about every step of the process that got them there, then they are lies.
-
I should say that, like many researchers, I have come to recognize this after years of behaving otherwise. By this standard I have published lies, then - if not many lies, it was only due to my own low productivity. I wish I had operated in a research culture which forbade that.
- 12 more replies
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.