asking "what's the harm?" and then detailing reasons why he thinks there's no harm is a rhetorical device not a Q&A session
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.