This is a great paper making a lot of good points! I do wonder, even for the positive examples brought up: First, aren& #39;t we trying to build airplanes when we haven& #39;t even discovered screws yet?> https://twitter.com/annemscheel/status/1302996065025757185">https://twitter.com/annemsche...

Even research doing the groundwork seems to rely on dozens of assumptions that could be questioned . Maybe we can get to the bottom. Or maybe we can& #39;t -- what if screws don& #39;t exist for more complex phenomena? See also @literalbanana& #39;s thoughts here: https://carcinisation.com/2020/01/27/ignorance-a-skilled-practice/>">https://carcinisation.com/2020/01/2...

Second, assuming this is a non-issue: How do we get people to work on screws rather than airplanes? Which researcher, editor, reviewer, reader gets excited about tiny details when elsewhere, people claim they& #39;ve actually already built freaking awesome space shuttles?>

Never mind they never take off (and that& #39;s assuming that we had some benchmark for success), who cares about that if it doesn& #39;t matter for anyone& #39;s evaluation. So, I& #39;m still about as pessimistic as I was when writing this one: http://www.the100.ci/2020/07/31/on-the-origin-of-psychological-research-practices-with-special-regard-to-self-reported-nostril-width/">https://www.the100.ci/2020/07/3...

(Oh no am i going full Tal?)