oh i dunno if he was joking but i loled either way
-
-
ok look i dont know what things are like in your field but in my field nobody can stop anyone doing pre-reg so the idea that some powerful guy would "let me" do pre-reg is meaningless, our battle is over whether to require it for everyone and if so how
-
It would not make sense (to me) to require it for my work.
-
This is a debate that seems best to have within not across fields. But from outside your field, his statements look to be saying that it's ok to make misleading claims because people know you're making misleading claims; this is a bad message to put out about your field.
-
Modelling (whether the math type as math psych people use or the cog type cog modellers like myself use — do not ask for a diff between us, huge discussion) is a different way of doing science and is applicable to many fields.https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1087405254352822273 …
-
I help out at a journal that does replication stuff (100% open science) for modelling (all fields welcome). So it's by no means true modellers don't care about evaluating their work.
-
To cast math modellers (like Rich's community), or any modellers, as not caring deeply about these issues would be a wrong assumption. But yeah, it's in part something psychology needs to deal with internally too. I agree with you there.
-
I also do work that is difficult to pre-register because I develop new statistical models in almost all of my papers, so I get what you're saying, but I still would not be happy with the idea that such papers can be expected to misstate and mislead as a general rule.
-
That is not what I read. So we disagree on the meta-level, which means we technically cannot disagree on the level of "is what he said something we agree with".
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.