Sure. But this ignores that you need to know what you are doing, when you code your statistics in R. If that's not what you are good at, it is better to stick to what you know. IMHO (I am guessing this is what Andy means)
-
-
Replying to @GordonFeld @ProfAndyField and
You need to know what you're doing when you use Excel too. Just because the output looks good doesn't mean it's correct. You need to know how to do your job regardless.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @ProfAndyField and
Of course. But I would argue that in Excel and SPSS it is easier to know, (roughly) what you are doing. There are just less options and you can usually follow a recipe. In e.g. R there is much more that can go wrong.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GordonFeld @ProfAndyField and
Given that I know of bugs in previous versions of SPSS where the p values output were mathematically wrong, I don't think it's a fair thing to say people know what they are doing if they are just mashing buttons into a GUI.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @ProfAndyField and
Ok. So if I understand you correctly, this means that a (quite large) group of people (i.e. most psychologists) who have been extensively trained in stat methods shouldn't be doing statistics. What about programming-pros, who have no formal training in stat methods?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GordonFeld @ProfAndyField and
I have no idea how you concluded this from my remarks.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @ProfAndyField and
Really the only thing I am saying is that "allowing" people to use SPSS or Excel is more inclusive. (And knowing what a stat method does theoretically may be more important than being able to implement it in a programming language...)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GordonFeld @o_guest and
Maybe more inclusive, but using proprietary software (and/or not disclosing code) makes a study irreproducible, hence ultimately unscientific (imho). On reproducibility see also
@jtleek on@simplystats https://simplystatistics.org/2017/03/02/rr-glossy/ …2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OmegaPolice @GordonFeld and
If you make your data and SPSS syntax public then everyone knows what you did. You may not be able to ‘run’ the syntax directly but you can reproduce the model. If you have an ‘open’ mindset you can be open regardless of software preference. 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ProfAndyField @OmegaPolice and
2/2 to be clear I’m merely advocating we let people make their own life decisions about software and stop making people feel bad for not using what we personally like. That philosophy extends to other things too
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I agree with you, but just because I am happy to let people use any tools they like doesn't mean I will stay quiet about pros and cons.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @OmegaPolice and
I’m not suggesting you do (and sorry if I implied otherwise) - it’s good to know what’s out there and why people like what they like (I advocate R a lot, for example).
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.