I'm interested in the phenomenon whereby researchers find it more acceptable to omit results from a report (error of omission), or fail to publish a null result, than to make up data (error of commission). Is there an accepted term for this?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @deevybee
Isn't it just motivated reasoning? It is easier to rationalise that some "real" data are not relevant to a report (something wrong with data, design suboptimal, etc) than to rationalise that made up data ARE relevant. To be fair, those decisions have to be made.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @richarddmorey
That doesn't get it. I am specifically interested in the distinction between active vs passive forms of wrongdoing, and how they are perceived differently in moral terms
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @deevybee @richarddmorey
Like negligent vs intentional torts in common law?
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Woah! You led me to this book. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232225/ … It is dated and the idea that “it is not practical (or necessary) to reconstruct all the observations and theoretical constructs that go into an investigation” is
. (Ignore if irrelevant
)1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Wow!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Indeed, looks very important/relevant.
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.