Are the methods of analysis considered part of the “methodological technology” this thread of research considers incomplete?
If so, the whole thing sort of trivializes to “statistics suck, and therefore science methodologically sucks.” On the flip side, how difficult/expensive would it be to run a series of these specifying the analytical methods in the same way the hypothesis and data sources were specified? One group does effect sizes instead of significance, one group does likelihood functions instead of significance, etc.
I keep updating in favor of a specialization-of-labor theory for reorganizing science. First order of business: adding analysts to create a Theory/Experiment/Analysis trifecta.
Are the methods of analysis considered part of the “methodological technology” this thread of research considers incomplete?
If so, the whole thing sort of trivializes to “statistics suck, and therefore science methodologically sucks.” On the flip side, how difficult/expensive would it be to run a series of these specifying the analytical methods in the same way the hypothesis and data sources were specified? One group does effect sizes instead of significance, one group does likelihood functions instead of significance, etc.
I keep updating in favor of a specialization-of-labor theory for reorganizing science. First order of business: adding analysts to create a Theory/Experiment/Analysis trifecta.