We don’t *just* show that but yes, of course a study needs to show this as well. I just think our main contribution is elsewhere.
-
-
Replying to @zerdeve
I just meant that false finding could easily be replicated (through systematic error or design flaw) and true finding could be non-replicable (e.g. a one-time event or unique phenomenon). So those two points are knowable a priori. But the study is cool for other reasons!
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
Well it may be apparent a priori knowledge to you and I but definitely not to all scientists. You should have seen some of the reviews we got and how much we had to fight to keep these conclusions in the paper! There’s great resistance.
3 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve @briandavidearp
See also Berna's wonderful talkhttps://youtu.be/-g9Q8EGH-RM
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
It was a very good talk and it's a very good paper. I don't know why she gets so many flippant responses to this work
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
I tried to clarify that my comment was a response to the claim as presented in the title of the press release (i.e., that reproducibility does not equate to truth does not require empirical demonstration). It wasn’t meant to be a comment on the actual study which is fascinating
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @djnavarro and
I think an important issue here is that this notion/criticism: "but this is obviously true" is a very common one used to reject papers ESPECIALLY MODELLING WORK from prestigious journals. So you will always receive a reaction if you say this to modellers even if in good faith.
4 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @briandavidearp and
The numbers of times people (reviewers, etc.) have said of models' results "we all know this" and "this is obviously true" when nothing of the sort is neither a mainstream view nor published is very high — hilarious and painful.
2 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @briandavidearp and
It reminds me of how right wing people and especially fascists talk about modern art. Ridiculously painful rhetoric.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @briandavidearp and
Yes, characterising modelled results as trivialities, obviousness, truisms... seems to be the pastime of many researchers. They seem to believe that intuition is a more reliable manner to elaborate scientific conclusions and that psychol. processes are simple linear operations.
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likes
The same reply to all the above: If you could have done it, why didn't 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.