Read on Twitter
This is a great paper making a lot of good points! I do wonder, even for the positive examples brought up: First, aren't we trying to build airplanes when we haven't even discovered screws yet?> https://twitter.com/annemscheel/status/1302996065025757185
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't -- what if screws don't exist for more complex phenomena? See also @literalbanana's thoughts here: https://carcinisation.com/2020/01/27/ignorance-a-skilled-practice/>
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've actually already built freaking awesome space shuttles?>
Never mind they never take off (and that's assuming that we had some benchmark for success), who cares about that if it doesn't matter for anyone's evaluation. So, I'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/
(Oh no am i going full Tal?)
