I think many scientific fields have that in-group tacit knowledge which is not communicated loudly. And it's motivated by everything from prestige cartels ("only we know what's actually good and how to do good science") to just smart intuition based on experience.
-
-
Replying to @ivanflis @ce_parsons
I do see/saw a big diff when I worked in a dev psych lab versus the kind of call outs I see for others of psych/cogsci in the labs I worked in before and since.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
All labs I have worked in I have discovered models which don't replicate, just to be clear. But I am talking about empirical stuff. In the dev psych lab I worked in there was this "don't you know Blah Blah doesn't replicate? everybody knows that" vibe but in private.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
While in non-dev labs I have worked in before and since, there is no secret cache of "this is what doesn't replicate" from empirical stuff, it's done publically nowadays... and I am asking if this is a thing or just me? Hence why I tagged
@chbergma...https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1105900205457707009 …Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is the reason there is "no big scandal in Dev Sci" because there are many scandals they just don't surface and so uptake of open- and replication-related practises is so fast because you all speak about this in private?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Do you get my question now,
@ivanflis?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yup yup, I get it now. Interested to hear what the answer of the dev peeps is going to be. :)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
No idea, and I must say I speak from a tiny corner of the field. I know there are cases of attemts to disprove each other etc, but that's different. In most cases I know there are debates and a mixed literature, not cases of 'don't touch textbook study x'
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And I also was talking about massive things like the dead salmon paper that made menat least question half of neuroscience, which is different from being wary of single studies / phenomena...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
(Urgh, I broke my thread) What does happen, but what I think is not special, are file-drawered failed attempts to replicate, but that is true afaik across fields, so it also doesn't fit the bill... There is a sound symbolism meta-analysis with a lot of unpublished studies eg
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Thanks and yes, that makes sense!
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.