Rather I think we should have healthy and solid theoretical *and* empirical lines of research that inform each other. But not all integration can happen in single papers; that would force superficiality (or monster papers).
-
-
I find it a little disturbing but not too surprising that a side-thread exists where modelling without data is seen as anathema/misplaced. So i'm glad we all like it in this tiny patch of the twittersphere.
-
It IS disturbing ... especially in cogsci. I wonder sometimes, what went wrong since the birth of cogsci

-
Me too! Sometimes I even think I know the answer.


-
What do you think? Curious. Or should I not ask?
-
I mean the reasons you presented are true IMHO and I think they are close/related to what I see. I see a specific kind of cultural stagnation, the same people again and again, recycling the same or similar ideas... I see very specific biases and very specific types of people
-
being promoted with others types of work and people being sidelined. I also see the rise to power of certain people. There are many aspects of our field that are indubitably corrupt. Can't speak for other fields, but they appear often more meritocratic.
-
For example, in CompSci if a neural network is better than another, it is appropriately stated as such. In CogSci we have issues around what types of work we consider better. Often these hierarchies are not based on merit.
- 15 more replies
New conversation
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.



L