well that much is clear, but being entirely qualitative arguments get clouded in jargon
-
-
Replying to @david_colquhoun
ok but I'm still not sure why this is a problem per se. Somethings are qualitative. It's just the way things are.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
it;s things like that (and the reproducibiliiy crisis) that gives academia a bad name name in the eyes of the public, surely?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
the public knows about the replication crisis? Nobody lay knows about it when I mention it...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
try this, from recent Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/21/cut-throat-academia-leads-to-natural-selection-of-bad-science-claims-study … There is a real crisis for public trustin science
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
@guardian might not be due to replication crisis per se. Trust in experts in general Micheal Gove,#Brexit etc etc but1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I take your point. It just doesn't match my lay interactions as I doubt all public reads guardian. But yes I see.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I've been trying to publish a huge failure to replicate for years for what it's worth. In very aware hence my
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
work with
@ReScienceEds journal dedicated to replications in computational modelling.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
When I suggested to editors that advice shld draw attention to false pos rates,they said no, it wld harm our impact fac
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
the work by @LorenaABarba would be especially relevant to you and this problem with numerical reproducibility/replication
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.