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
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.
-
Not become as my impression was that it is becoming "less accepted".
-
it seems like some p hacks are acceptable as a function of which subfield of psychology they are attempted in
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I myself must admit that I am a huge fan of Popper. I don't think of myself as a Popperian, though.
-
fair enough, I read a lot of Feyerabend I don't think I'll be against method any time soon.

-
I've been exposed to postmodern anthropology and used to read a lot of Chomskyan linguistics. I'm all for method now.
End of conversation
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.
