4 ms·
The bitterness seems real: > The debate has clearly become acrimonious. Paap says that he has been ignored; Bialystok feels she is being personally attacked. P
by RickHull 11y ago
The bitterness seems real:
> The debate has clearly become acrimonious. Paap says that he has been ignored; Bialystok feels she is being personally attacked. Perhaps, wrote Eric-Jan Wagenmakers from the University of Amsterdam, the two sides could form an “adversarial collaboration.” That is, they would work together to test the bilingual advantage once and for all, through a large study, perhaps involving many labs. The teams would pre-register all their experimental plans and agree to publish the results no matter what, so there could be no accusation of questionable research practices or publication bias. Then let the chips fall where they may. This approach has already been used to some success in other areas of psychology.
> Paap is up for it; Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. “And they’ve set up so many toxins in this area that no good collaboration can result.” Bak feels similarly. “How much would I win by working with someone who doesn’t understand the area and is already biased?”
- geomark 11y agoA lot of researchers would disagree with the statement "That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves" You've got to complete the test using the protocol and hypotheses established at the outset. If you decide a change in protocol is required you wrap up the original test, report on the results, and then start a new test. Otherwise you end up with some combination of the issues described in A menagerie of messed up data analyses and how to avoid them[1] [1] http://simplystatistics.org/2016/02/01/a-menagerie-of-messed-up-data-analyses-and-how-to-avoid-them/ http://simplystatistics.org/2016/02/01/a-menagerie-of-messed...
- RickHull 11y agoYes, from what I can tell, Bialystok is explicitly violating the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms, particularly with "How much would I win by ..." and denial of Skepticism.
- mattlutze 11y ago> Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. She's unfortunately right -- all too often protocol, hypotheses and analytical technique are changed to fit each other, reach a p-value of 0.05 and achieve publication. For this reason among many there may indeed be value in sticking to original protocols and having to publish results. Negative and unclear results can be as useful as positive results, and what's ultimately published may end up less biased as well, which would be another plus.