I received similar comments on my blog post re: distrusting my ego-depletion results.
-
-
Replying to @JoeHilgard @chrisdc77
So this http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 … says 4449 retractions. Is nothing. Would be millions if bad ideas were retracted.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lakens @JoeHilgard
True, however as I see it the key pt isn't the overall rate of ret's but the relative difference in ret rates b/w fields
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @JoeHilgard
OK, that's indeed a difference. But I was mainly responding to idea that bad idea = retration. Done nowhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lakens @JoeHilgard
Indeed, I don't think anyone argues that is the case. More a matter of field-dependent differences in error tolerance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't get why it shouldn't be retracted in your opinions? Or am I misreading?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
ok looking back I now see more tweets, so you mean perhaps it should be but pr and low bar mean it won't be &
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
that's kind of even more depressing about state of field. The mess can't even be cleaned up to ppls standards
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
for fear of further egg on face etc etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's still real data. Best-case scenario would be a mega-correction fully detailing sample process & all DVs.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
is science more about correct data or correct interpretation, theory, etc?
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.