it's anti Bayesian that's one thing
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
I disagree, but maybe you can elaborate. In my view, pre-reg is crucial for hypothesis testing, be it frequentist or Bayesian.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @annemscheel
@Darren_Rhodes might enjoy going through it, I'm not actually against others doing preregistration. But I can't see me doing it2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @Darren_Rhodes
Ok - I'd be really interested in your specific objections though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @Darren_Rhodes
I don't object. Empirical people can do anything they like.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Darren_Rhodes
Right... realising my "preregister everything" should actually be "preregister everything empirical".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @annemscheel @Darren_Rhodes
well, I'm not sure about other modellers ofc. Everybody has their own perspective. I doubt they disagree tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
with modelling reproduction and reimplementation is v important with respect to theory/validation etc
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Darren_Rhodes
In principal I stand by "pre-reg everything", but if you're not collecting new data, it's a promise no-one can check
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @annemscheel @Darren_Rhodes
model is implementation of theory imho so I could preregister a theory, but the point is to discover the theory
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
so if you're wrong it'll change inevitably
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.