In all honesty, apart from open data and open source (which modellers are probably some of the most avid adopters) I do not believe reform in modelling has actually been proposed? We already do cross-val where possible, give the maths behind the model. What new format do we need?
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @JCSkewesDK and
Agreed. It hasn't really been explained what needs fixing here. The biggest problem with computational theory work is that there's not enough of it. Once we solve that problem, then other issues might be apparent
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @o_guest and
My point more broadly is that if our fields are in a reform phase, then humanists and theorists should be involved in determining new institutions in that process. More funding for theory, more acknowledgement of different paper/discourse types, etc would all be part of this.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @o_guest and
Yes definitely. But the question is whether the misunderstood minority should let the majority group help to set the terms for their own reform. The track record in this process has not been great (IMO) so far.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @JCSkewesDK and
I feel like maybe I've not been clear. I'm very skeptical of the idea that a paper type will help the kind of science I do. Complex problems needs complex solutions. And I'm not even convinced modelling has any deep problems inherent to any of the many different ways it is done.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Bart tweets progress.
There isn't something simple going on with modelling... as I explained many times (e.g., on this account: https://twitter.com/SfPRocur/status/1102957227906949121 …), the issues are very deep and nuanced when they exist AND modelleres already actually do a lot to address them.
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Anyway the police/city metaphor and the idea that a paper type can help modelling seems too off to me to be of use for modelling. As well as a bit off to be told what our work is like or what our environment is like from those who don't do modelling.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
I thought the point was to respect experts and modellers are experts not just on modelling itself but also how they and their work is treated by wider psych/cogsci/neurosci.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @bradpwyble and
Thanks for clarifying. I think we completely agree. Modeling expertise is a form of theorising and experts in modeling need to be part of any reform we might be undergoing. Mine is an argument for diversity in any reform process and I agree the city metaphor is inappropriate.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @o_guest and
City metaphor's are generally authoritarian and exclusionary (cf Plato)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Thank you. 
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.