Notice that *small* p values --- those with high evidential weight --- are mapped to 0, and values near the significance criterion are mapped to arbitrarily large values. This means that positive evidence is destroyed, and negative evidence is given very heavy weight! Example: suppose you... 5/?

I guessed you’d bring this up. You should read more about replication. Scientists really don’t do it, you know. They never did, in the real world. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...

@elisabethbik.bsky.social when asked cant provide any ethical approval for her most famous 2016 study, or any information on her false positive rate no open analysis scripts, no open data, no science @nature.com @science.org @einsteinberlin.bsky.social @plos.org @plosbiology.org @error.reviews

I am sure @science.org @cos.io @nature.com @currentbiology.bsky.social @plosbiology.org also have an interest in your setting an example in this regard and making clear that you did not actually get ethical approval for the study, and you did not take any precautions about false positives?

can you link to the ethical approval for your 2016, most famous study? Id also like information on your false + rate, and what steps you take to safeguard people who might be falsely accused. I assume you have this material prepared, since it would be needed for any real ethics approval .. ?

these are hilarious but also the BIG RED SIGN to buy your farm in the hills because its over

What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma. It's *scientific publishing*. We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing. Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_... Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇

Wrote a short piece arguing that higher ed must help steer AI. TLDR: If we outsource this to tech, we outsource our whole business. But rejectionism is basically stalling. If we want to survive, schools themselves must proactively shape AI for education & research. [1/6, unpaywalled at 5/6] +

in 20 years the field is going to see the replicability movement for the mistake it was, and those who spent their time will just be forgotten.

@minzlicht.bsky.social the longer you delay the QReP paper from coming out the worse off you and yours are going to look when it does come out - and the more years you and yours will have wasted. we have an empirical paper coming that handles all your 'criticisms' e.g., no expertise, no piloting

what you dummies look like claiming ai is bad and etc

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

fixed that for you

when real money is on the line the truth comes out

my new baby :)

dont forget retweeting your own tweets 10 - 15 times and then retweeting everyone who makes a comment on your tweet

you mean concentration camps?

Front page of Scottish newspaper The National today.

by all means, it is better for me if you do not use ai :D

When the notoriously leftwing institution of the <checks notes> papacy is telling your country it’s gone too far right

Betteridge’s law of headlines is strong with this one. arxiv.org/abs/2510.02408

article's conclusion is both inspiring and unsettling: if you're making strategic plans based on linear projections of AI capabilities, you're probably wrong. The only certainty is that things will change faster than you think. My takeaway: Instead of trying to predict exactly where AI search is-

Julian Schrittwieser wrote a piece that perfectly captures something I've been wrestling with: people (including me) keep underestimating exponential AI progress. His key point: our brains are wired for linear thinking. When something improves 10% year over year, we can mentally project that-

Trump got a Covid vaccine today.

“The explosion was felt 15 miles away”

thank you internet

nobody has any real objections, just name calling

How to people feel about Sigma Xi? research honor society

I wouldn’t normally endorse AI prompts but these are indeed essential for all academics.

#aspredicted classic

As part of the Pilot Reporting Task Force, founded at @improvingpsych.org conference 2023, I would like to share a preprint with you: osf.io/preprints/ps.... We are looking for feedback on our perspective piece, promoting more transparency in the reporting of piloting in psychological science. 1/4

is it just me or did the open science thing really slow down?

Free Palestine.

A ten year investigation to prove this is indeed the gold standard was retracted for many things, including overstating the causal support. *The science supporting the EOs gold standard was retracted!* www.nature.com/articles/s41...

snap - whole replicability movement falling down soon #aspredicted

“So you’re saying we can’t work on science reform at all” No. I have being working on this for a decade and continue to do so. I’m saying don’t make a name for yourself by lying about the scope of the problem using ridiculous models that require absurd assumptions to get off the ground.

If your business model doesn’t work without breaking the law, then you’re not in business. You’re in organized crime.

By playing rhythmic audio to comatose patients, then skipping a beat, researchers could elicit changes in heart rate—but only in patients who went on to have favorable outcomes. The phenomenon could be used to predict patient outcomes. In PNAS: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

I found these in the same paper i guess

powamoves

Claims about scientific rigour require rigour @jbakcoleman.bsky.social can you please make an open access version of this available? preprint etc www.nature.com/articles/s41...

I am pretty obviously not a Zalophus californianus. she cant handle real questions so she blocks or ad hominems, if it was a climate denier w private funding not at a uni you would say of course this is an unserious person - why not apply the same here?

i live inside wales but im not Pinocchio, got fans from belgium to tokeyo www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqdd...

1/ 📣 LOCAL JOURNALISTS: Want to collaborate with us? Apply for ProPublica's Local Reporting Network! We're standing by to help with proposals. 🧵

one reviewer recently went through every citation and told us all the ones that they felt we were not citing properly 👍

they are just realizing they fugged up

now study on whether citations reflect the actual papers does not read the citations or papers :D

Bet some of this is down to institute directors, senior researchers or PhD supervisors who insist on having their name on all research done beneath them, regardless of how minimal, or even non-existent, their input was? I hate that practice. #AcademicSky 📚