I disagree, but maybe you can elaborate. In my view, pre-reg is crucial for hypothesis testing, be it frequentist or Bayesian.
-
-
Replying to @annemscheel
also to say preregistration compatible with all types of theory testing/phil of sci is not actually philosophically accurate
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel
prereg = a philosophical position just like anything and the phil of sci needs to be thought out for it just like with anything
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel
severe testing of hypotheses with or without pre reg can actually achieve a lot of what we want. But ppl won't do it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
severity in the Mayo sense
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @annemscheel
so it's kinda like Poppers use: test with a highly probability of detecting genuine effects but not non genuine
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ed_berry @annemscheel
link me! Sounds like some phil of sci I'd be interested in reading about - I'm not a Popperian though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ed_berry @annemscheel
food is for the week
also thanks - I await with eagerness.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
weak even - though week works too haha
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.
