I also worry a lot about prereg not preventing bad research. But I also like the basic idea of making people thinking about what they’re going to do before they do it. In my field at least it’s common to think after the analysis rather than before.
Somehow I’ve ended up following many more philosophers here than I did at the old place and I’m loving it.
Perfectly said. In a league where Pare gets the appropriate punishment, a lot of these revenge shenanigans don’t happen.
A) No one is making any decisions based on your study alone B) Hiding uncertainty makes the decision easier but it doesn’t make it good or better C) You’re allowed to make decisions based on uncertain evidence
I find it fascinating how often when I say: “The results are stated with way more certainty than is warranted by your study.” The answer is: “Well yeah, but we need to make decisions based on this study.”
Someone implied that the null was true because a test was not significant and a masters student I taught pointed out that you can’t do that. I almost cried with joy. There is hope.
I vote for as they happen
Can AI identify magpies at my bird feeder and shoot them with Nerf darts?
My favourite sub-niche: Reports on the Habs' European prospects.