Heuristic: If you have data and look for questions, you'll generate insight. If you have questions and look for data, you'll generate noise
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Not quite right. Understand the sentiment, but the later sounds like the appropriate scientific testing of hypotheses.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottRackey
Science does not actually work that way (see Feyerabend, Against Method). Also...http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
2/2 Science is the craft of "knowing what you know". Like with any craft there are multiple tools, and practitioners of varying talent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottRackey
It sometimes does (minority of cases, especially the automatable ones). That's why I said heuristic, not iron-clad rule.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Perhaps depends on whether the goal is scientific discovery or technology development.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottRackey
That would be nice but the biggest factor is governments treating science production *as* a technology. Goodhart's Law kicks in
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Too often, big science projects like big medicine or big DOD, become a career, where vested interests keep the project going regardless
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
this classic may be of interest http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents …
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.