I found the article's structure a bit confusing and it's possible this part is not meant to be true. But I *think* the author thinks it is.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @MikeBenchCapon
Observation isn't experiment. This seems very confused. I've never worked with observational data. I'm a scientist. https://faculty.elgin.edu/dkernler/statistics/ch01/1-2.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @MikeBenchCapon
Not to say that scientists don't work with observational data, they do. But experimental data is more "standard" for science.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @MikeBenchCapon
Anyway my point is that however is writing this seems confused as they used experimental and observational as if they are interchangeable.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @MikeBenchCapon
I'm not going to read the blog. I'm basing this on the extract you highlighted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @MikeBenchCapon
Also the idea that all scientific talks contain data is largely true, but pretty much every talk I've given has been computational modelling
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @MikeBenchCapon
which is theory implemented to capture some phenomenon. No empirical data though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest
It does; thanks! To clarify some more: are you saying most scientific talks include data but you usually do comp modelling which is an >>
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MikeBenchCapon @o_guest
>> exception to this, or that they usually include data but sometimes (eg comp modelling) the data used in the talk isn't *new* data?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.