deanshamess.ca
deanshamess.ca
Ph.D. Candidate at JSGS USask // Science Policy, Science of Science, Science and Power and Populism // econ, policy, polisci… whatever works
27 posts
1,244 followers
460 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I’d like to know more about robot king python…
comment in response to
post
The irresistible urge to pet potentially dangerous (scared) animals
comment in response to
post
That’s a big coyote!! Glad Fergus (and you) are ok!
comment in response to
post
And no I do not agree with science reform's policies and no that does not, in fact, mean that I am against improving science. The fact that we can have different views and approaches on this is a good thing actually. Science does not operate on premature consensus. WTAF folks??
comment in response to
post
And if you fail to live up to your own standards during a pandemic, don’t cry censorship all the way to the Oval Office while using your bullshit to cast doubt on obvious scientific fact.
And if someone does behave that way, don’t make them a figurehead of the movement.
comment in response to
post
“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.
comment in response to
post
Counterpoint: have you met an average North American man? (Myself included)
comment in response to
post
I was also on a bsky hiatus, and purged all my old posts… but don’t worry CamBots, I’m back!
comment in response to
post
Hi Cameron and your fun little robots!
comment in response to
post
+1
comment in response to
post
Sorry, what business does a causal inference podcast have having a theme song that shreds so hard?!?
comment in response to
post
Ya, none of what I'm thinking has anything to do with whether an error exists. It should be easy enough, imo, to try and push to uncover w/ the authours and editors if that's the case - esp. if you signal that you're otherwise open to the paper/results.
comment in response to
post
Maybe this is stretching your analogy too far/maybe it doesn't map onto the paper in question... But that does feel like the kind of fertile ground where SOMETHING did change on the ground, whether it was an intervention the researchers measured or something else, we should want to find out more!
comment in response to
post
All of this is couched in the assumption, again, that there's no actual error in the method or coding.
comment in response to
post
With four more minutes of thinking, I honestly think that's ok!
Maybe, as a reviewer, that's an avenue you can push them to explore then? "This finding seems completely implausible" can easily lead to lots of good-faith, valuable "so here's what we need to follow-up on and investigate further"
comment in response to
post
I might (haven't thought this through deeply enough given the current ~*~*~* RepLIcAtiON DiScOUrsE *~*~*~) even say that they shouldn't be punished, so long as there's no evident error, even if the effect size remains implausible seeming and they can't really figure out why it happened.
comment in response to
post
you see effects that are an order of magnitude smaller.
That being said, I don't think they should be punished if it can be demonstrated that it's not an error and they can make a plausible argument for why this intervention was so effective?
comment in response to
post
Ya, all seems a little strange from a norm/ethic perspective.
Absent a reason to think otherwise though, noting to the authour(s)/editor(s) your concern seems fair. Assuming no errors, the authours absolutely should have to explain why it could even be possible in their case, if everywhere else...
comment in response to
post
I would love to read more reporting, specifically, or academic investigation of where these forms of these ideas came from though. They were not, afaik, part of 'the discourse' until recently.
comment in response to
post
And the rest of us either accept the loss of any semblance of that same thing, or are punished for our efforts to exert our own.
*~*tHaT'S juST ImPerIALIsm*~* or whatever, sure, but, again, this is qualitatively different and not just because of 'who' (Canada, EU etc.) is targeted...
comment in response to
post
Around the idea that if other jurisdictions regulate Big Tech, that's a tariff!
And, like, sure, if you want to you can just call anything a tariff. I don't really care about that (sorry Econs).
But this really is, fundamentally, about reshaping the world so that Americans are sovereign (sic) ...
comment in response to
post
I'm not completely ignorant to the origins of these ideas, and they're certainly not actually new... but there is a qualitatively new tone and tenor to these claims that goes way beyond "Well, Trump is back".
I noticed this first with the Big Tech firms and US Admin being, seemingly, in lock step
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Andrew left us for those pastures….
comment in response to
post
Whatever it was, hoo boy, the mainstreaming of the idea that only one country can decide how to regulate - that regulations are thus only (loosely) accountable to one populous...
comment in response to
post
This idea that countries exercising some form of sovereignty and deciding how to regulate businesses operating there is a form of a tariff.
Ignoring that you can call anything a tariff if you really want to... did Trump-world make this real and tech-PR jumped on board? Or was it the opposite?
comment in response to
post
I'm back!!! I know you all missed me so much! I'm mostly here because I've felt the need to post, for a month now, about how mad this makes me....
I would love to read something about the 'direction' of the relationship here.