But you think it describes how our field actually works internally? And that it’d be an efficient way for it to function? Genuinely curious.
-
-
Replying to @siminevazire
I think our field mostly operates on the "truth" assumption, but runs to the "scratch pad" one in defense against things such as failures to replicate.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RogertheGS @siminevazire
So Rich is more math psych. And I understand him. I really struggle to understand the perspective(s) of social/personality psych people quite a bit and often have to ask for more context. When I get it, I can see more about what why the position you all have is the way it is.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
I am not in this sub-field, but I can relate to Shiffrin's point in a slightly different way. Sometimes, one can point out/illustrate a new way of doing things where the motivation/argument for it is primarily theoretical. 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NeuroStats @o_guest and
Yet it seems most scientists & their communities don't accept purely theoretical arguments. So one tries to illustrate it empirically with a new kind of study or dataset. But the numbers/empirical evidence are often highly preliminary/weak. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NeuroStats @o_guest and
Yet for some reason the latter strategy seems to be persuasive & compelling in getting a field to think differently even when the actual empirical evidence is weak/flawed wasn't even necessary/crucial to make the whole argument. This is something I am trying to understand. 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @NeuroStats @o_guest and
Cargo cults...in the past, experiments have been successful at providing the data that has convinced the field. Therefore future experiments as opposed to theories matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @bradpwyble @KordingLab and
Iris van Rooij Retweeted Nicole Barbaro
Iris van Rooij added,
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @bradpwyble and
@NeuroStats: you're correct. The research community does place too much weight on flawed empirical evidence, incentivising people to collect it. Not just flawed: often completely irrelevant evidence cf. the use of brain imaging as evidence for purely psychological theory testing1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Yeah, I'm lucky to be in a lab where we don't collect any data.
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.