I agree my analogy wasn't quite right. I have to dial out soon and do some (much less interesting) work, but what I was getting it as that I think we need to find a way to make the reforms that are happening to the experimental sciences coexist alongside theoretical work... /1
-
-
Replying to @chrisdc77 @IrisVanRooij and
Otherwise I fear that two things will happen: necessary reforms will be held back by people arguing about the wrong things when they should be working together, and more importantly, fields like theory dev/modelling that stem from different philosophical roots will be subsumed /2
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @IrisVanRooij and
Against this we need to recognise, imo, some realities: 1- science is reforming and that train is unstoppable now. This is much bigger than psychology 2- there will be new rules/norms/procedures in certain fields to increase quality /3
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @IrisVanRooij and
I would personally like historians/philosophers/theoreticians and others with different views & approaches to be right in the middle of these conversations, even if only to say "leave us out of all this, we want no part of it". But I think there are more productive approaches /4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @IrisVanRooij and
And through productive conversations we can build things that help all of us: whether that's policies that celebrate theoretical research & protect it from unnecessary bureaucracy, or new article types, new funding models, new edu programmes, etc. that benefit from wider input /5
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @IrisVanRooij and
Anyhow, I'll leave it there. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
@JCSkewesDK - yes totally up for writing something together on this. Let's reconnect when time permits.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @IrisVanRooij and
Yep. The reform process should be open, and this in itself requires thoughtfully constructing a forum.
#OpenScienceIMC was intended as a step in this direction. I'd love to write something together. Will get in touch when I've made some much needed progress on dept chair stuff.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @chrisdc77 and
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?
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
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
So, while I agree we most points, having a paper format for modeling in social psych for example may actually promote more modeling work. So in some instances, promoting a paper format may communicate what’s desirable in a community.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Social psych modellers should be given the platform and audience then to have this dialogue with their non-modelling colleagues. I haven't seen that happen and it's not for me to say what they should do.
-
-
Thanks. 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.