Indeed, I don't think anyone argues that is the case. More a matter of field-dependent differences in error tolerance.
-
-
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
I mean it should not be. We don't retract studies that turn out to be wrong. Science = progress, not an end result.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Umberto Eco has a nice passage on this in his book "How to Write a Thesis".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SaschaGriffiths
.
@lakens@o_guest Hypotheses are only complete if the authors define criteria by which they can be proven false.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
That may be true but we have to agree on some rules otherwise we can't play. I would consider Eco strongly Popperian, btw.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SaschaGriffiths @lakens
most people in psy if I'm not mistaken are not Popperian, much more likely to be Bayesian or Kuhnian or Lakatosian.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
where there was a single method. It's always been plural: scientific methods.
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.