It seems to me that this whole article's thesis is: Social Psychology was — and maybe still is not yet? — a science. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html …
-
-
(I do legitimately think people ignore the consequence of basic Bayesian logic here; some areas are more complex than others)
-
My prior confidence in a field where you rely on indirect observation of a highly complex system is much lower
-
"Gelman [...] does not believe that social psychology is any more guilty of P-hacking than, say, biology or economics"
-
oh absolutely! i was more going for my view that stuff that relies on egnetwork analysis of cells is, imo, very hard to be confident in
-
so other things being equal i would expect the field to have lots of false positives and complications
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The name's crab popper... wait that sounds awful
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.