OK, that's indeed a difference. But I was mainly responding to idea that bad idea = retration. Done nowhere.
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
-
*or were more accepted, so function of subfield and time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
where there was a single method. It's always been plural: scientific methods.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
