my very honest but naive opinion about science today: we somehow stopped valuing systematic observation and naturalistic approach to science and started thinking we can keep testing hypotheses instead. but we’re not spending enough time developing hypotheses worth testing.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zerdeve
I think about this often. Someone scratches the surface of a topic. It’s no longer novel, so it’s “been done.” What a shame.
2 replies 3 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @tcarpenter216 @zerdeve
If the replication issue tells us anything, it’s that we’re going shallow on many “quick” novelties rather than seeking deep understanding
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @tcarpenter216
What a shame indeed. We find something sexy, publish it, and move on to the next hot topic. And that’s called science? Seems like a game. I have very confusing thoughts about this “business”.
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve @tcarpenter216
I read it somewhere: most people want to do groundbreaking research. Groundbreaking is making holes to build edifices over. If only groundbreaking, we end up with lots of holes and no buildings!
2 replies 5 retweets 14 likes
I touched on how the replication crisis and the OP issue are (causally) related a little, here: http://thewinnower.com/papers/4825-crisis-in-what-exactly … But this is a topic that deserves a lot more, especially since even some of those who claim to see the problem ignore it when it comes to actions.
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.