I interpreted the "difference which makes a difference” as the sensitivity of our understanding of the status quo relative to the research instance. In that sen

I interpreted the "difference which makes a difference” as the sensitivity of our understanding of the status quo relative to the research instance. In that sense, the critique would be about estimating impact on some dimension of understanding conditioned on a finding of credible difference. That would say that big bets are better research. In other terms of critique, Gelman talks about two components (which may appear to be in tension), one referencing the craft of research, and the other in terms of apparent novelty of effect. My interpretation is that a critique of research should factor in both the character of the bet and an assessment of the evaluation. I don't think big is better, I think incisive is better, but that broader impact (news worthiness) is conditioned on credible surprise. [0] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/08/01/scientific-surprise-two-step/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/08/01/scientific...