Not sure if you saw this Lee: https://twitter.com/juscallmekirsty/status/1067817112138321920 … where after Steve says that it should be condemned and removed, he says he's always up to talk or debate. This is despite on the original thread me repeatedly asking for evidence for this:https://twitter.com/ReicherStephen/status/1067548193511100416 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lee, failing to publish a paper because it is bad scholarship is not censorship. It is maintaining standards. This paper makes claims about social psychologists that are contradicted by its own evidence. That makes it a slur, not science. Having published it, let's not promote it
Fine. Even if you were right in this case, should ev psych researchers demand that every paper be withdrawn that ever made false and defamatory arguments against ev psych based on no evidence? That would be literally thousands of papers over fifty years.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That's what we do all the time, Lee. Editors do it for papers and research digests. Authors do it for textbooks. Teachers do it in lectures. And when it is pointed out that work is flawed, we listen, appraise and generally stop promoting that work.
- 3 more replies
-
-
-
Geoffrey, I'm glad we agree that defamatory arguments that have no grounding in evidence should not be in the literature. Let's debate ideas and debate them on the basis of the evidence.
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.