The problem is when the post-data hypothesis is presented as pre-data and one uses that data to support the hypothesis.
1/ I'm pleased to announce the publication of my paper "Cognitive Metascience: A New Approach to the Study of Theories" in The Review of Psychology. The Polish translation appeared earlier in the same journal, and the preprint was available earlier. czasopisma.uwm.edu.pl/index.php/pp...
No clear demarcation, yet different perspective, toolset, and methodology. What a dedicated field can achieve is, among others, fostering long-term research programs through grant schemes, PhD programs etc.
if you wish to be involved in building this new discipline join the initiative here: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...
You must have of history, philosophy, maybe sociology of science. What about psychology of science? Are the inner factors of scientists not an important area to study? I disagree and propose an agenda for psychology of science here: rdcu.be/dtSWj@natureportfolio.bsky.social
Two interesting papers reflecting on the accuracy of social science predictions about COVID-19. Paper 1: social scientists were correct ~ 89% of the time: www.nature.com/articles/s41...psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
We are excited to announce that we will now reproduce and replicate studies in the fields of psychology and behavioral sciences!! We are also welcoming 13 new board members. 🧵with details below!
"Can a Good Theory be Built Using Bad Ingredients?" New preprint from Sarahanne Field and colleagues osf.io/zeyvm#MetaSci#PhilSci 🧵
I wanted to find out more about the future of academic publishing from this just published "Future of academic publishing" paper but it's paywalled. Maybe I just did... www.nature.com/articles/s41...