My website redesign was supposed to be a time-intensive and completely ineffectual effort to increase my readership. But mere days after, I landed one of the most steely-eyed, critical voices in the scientific discourse around the replication crisis. Scientists, as they exist in society’s imagination, should have an Asperger’s caliber disinterest in breaking errors gently, any otherwise attending to the feelings of others. Andrew Gelman is a more active, thoughtful, thorough, and terrifying bad methods sniper in scientist-to-scientist discourse today. Yikes. He found my blog, which sent him down a little rabbit hole. I seem to have come through it OK. Better than the other Seth he mentions!:
My own role in the social science’s current replication discourse is as a person with very interesting opinions that no one but me really cares about. Until today! Here is what I have to offer:
- Never too smart to be very wrong, about famous scientists who died believing rot
- White hat p-hacking, a primer, about reconciling experiment registration with exploratory data analysis.
- and The unexpected importance of publishing unreplicable research, about the hidden costs of always demanding the highest quality in empirical work.