That may be true but we have to agree on some rules otherwise we can't play. I would consider Eco strongly Popperian, btw.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @SaschaGriffiths @lakens
journals can have explicit and social psychology itself can have implicit rules for retraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I can also think it should be retracted using my own metrics. Science is not a monolith but it's also irrelevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
very little is uniform, consensus changes, paradigm shifts happen. That's not relevant unless you think p hacking
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
will become accepted as ok, I suppose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not become as my impression was that it is becoming "less accepted".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SaschaGriffiths @lakens
it seems like some p hacks are acceptable as a function of which subfield of psychology they are attempted in
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
*or were more accepted, so function of subfield and time.
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.