Great, gimme a new slide. This one has been getting boring anyway.
-
-
Just add: "formal theory development relying mainly on abductive inference" down the bottom and I think you're pretty good.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
This raises an interesting question. I'm not sure it's a good idea to put theory driven research in a separate category like this, especially since "hyp driven research" is emphasized by e.g. the NIH.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradpwyble @JCSkewesDK and
The phrase "hypothesis driven" is a term that has a lot baggage as the best kind of science. So even this revised slide has this property of advocating RR as the best kind of science.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
What phrase would you use instead?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @bradpwyble and
Just wanna butt in to say great work to
@JCSkewesDK and@bradpwyble at explaining Danielle's research/point and why pre-reg and RR are not being situated correctly as a tool and why exploratory/confirmatory is not a/the real dissociation.1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Now that would have been a great question to ask yesterday
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @bradpwyble and
I mean you kind of did answer it when I told you pre-reg doesn't work for my work you said my modelling is "exploratory", right? But I don't think it is, at least not the same way you would describe an analysis on data...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
Modelling (the kind we are talking about here) doesn't play the role that inferential statistics play. You can't create a model by p-hacking, for example, since there are no p-values, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
Looking at the data and then creating the model is fine — I mean maybe even required. Unless you explicitly label the model as having been tested on the data is was used to be trained, for example, I don't think it's a problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This is why I am sceptical about the value of pre-reg and RR, not because I don't think they don't work in the appropriate context, but because I think the debate needs to move forward into nuance.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Don't disagree with any of that. Just because prereg/RRs are a hammer doesn't make everything a nail. Let the nuanced debate flourish.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
Not just more nuance, we also need to reduce the inaccuracy of value-labelling. The reform movement inherently brings along this baggage of good and bad practices, which is fair enough, but values need to be applied in a genuinely useful way.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.