I received similar comments on my blog post re: distrusting my ego-depletion results.
-
-
That may be true but we have to agree on some rules otherwise we can't play. I would consider Eco strongly Popperian, btw.
-
most people in psy if I'm not mistaken are not Popperian, much more likely to be Bayesian or Kuhnian or Lakatosian.
-
and no we actually don't have to agree that's the beauty of science. I don't think there's been a point in history
-
That muddies the waters wrt retraction criteria. ;-) I agree with
@lakens, it's about the continuous progress in knowledge. -
journals can have explicit and social psychology itself can have implicit rules for retraction.
-
I can also think it should be retracted using my own metrics. Science is not a monolith but it's also irrelevant.
-
very little is uniform, consensus changes, paradigm shifts happen. That's not relevant unless you think p hacking
-
will become accepted as ok, I suppose.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.
