r/BehSciMeta - Comment by u/VictorVenema on ”Can one distinguish between argument and fact? And, if yes, how?”. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/ho0qr1/can_one_distinguish_between_argument_and_fact_and/fxezalm

Fuhrer, J., & Cova, F. (2020). “Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ju62p

Sperrin, M., Martin, G. P., Sisk, R., & Peek, N. (2020). Missing data should be handled differently for prediction than for description or causal explanation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.028

Olsson-Collentine, A., van Assen, M. A. L. M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Postprint—Heterogeneity in direct replications in psychology and its association with effect size [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m23v4

Mis-allocated scrutiny. (2020, June 24). The 100% CI. http://www.the100.ci/2020/06/24/mis-allocated-scrutiny/

Efron, B. (2020). Prediction, Estimation, and Attribution. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115(530), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1762613

Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance: Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782

Rosenbusch, H., Hilbert, L. P., Evans, A. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2020). StatBreak: Identifying “Lucky” Data Points Through Genetic Algorithms. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2515245920917950. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920917950

Science could learn something from this. Science is too far focused on the idealized positive outcomes that it isn't paying attention to the negative outcomes and using that to better define its outline or overall shape. We need to define a scientific opportunity cost and apply it to the negative side of research to better understand and define what we're searching for.

Of course, how can we define a new scientific method (or amend/extend it) to better take into account negative results--particularly in an age when so many results aren't even reproducible?

I take his general point here, and Newton said something along these lines, but I wouldn't call it "Newton's philosophy". If anything this philosophy is really the scientific method and Newton didn't invent it.

"ars est celare artem: art consists in concealing art"

I do not dig this mechanical, technical, scientific method dissection of writing. Unfortunately, this article is filled with this pre-Freudian crap. You wouldn't tear Raphael a new one because he painted The School of Athens figures in the wrong order.

Are these mechanics the result of the scientific method?

Are you doing science projects? Maybe you can use an old mission scope to have students ask questions about. That way some of the questions we will need to face will be answered before we actually get the mission for this year.

Is he saying something about inductive vs deductive methods? Where typically historians have a model or a hypothesis but now they are allowing the data to tell the story?