– Sane, reasonable, . . . and wrong. Here I was going to talk about some reasonable and moderate-sounding recommendations that I think miss some key issues.
– The fractal nature of scientific revolution. I’ve talked about this a lot, for example in 2005, 2007, and 2012.
– Workflow. My plan here was to talk about my applied statistics workflow (on my mind because I just wrote up a longer version of the case study on golf putting) and then discuss connections to social science workflow.
– The insider/outsider perspective. Ironic that I got this idea from Seth, given that he was a sucker for junk science.
On the plus side, I did get a chance to talk about:
– Imagine a world . . .
– The piranha principle
– Worse than Freud
– The fallacy of the one-sided bet
– Social science as we know it is impossible, featuring 16
– The vicious cycle, and it’s our fault
– Statistics is hard
– Taking the lessons of metascience and applying them to science.
Will there be blogposts on those topics?
The ones above without links . . . yes, I’ll post on them at some point.
Hi Andrew,
Can I ask a tiny favour? Could you remove the link to the 2005 post or alternatively edit the post so that it doesn’t deadname me? I know it’s a hassle, bit I’d appreciate it.
Best,
Danielle
Danielle:
Done. I edited the linked post and also the earlier post that was linked to. This worked well as it motivated me to read that fifteen-year-old discussion which still has relevance today to our discussions on workflow.
Thank you! I appreciate it.