Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://econtwitter.net/users/mwt/statuses/111858227784406994">Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 20:14:24 JST</a><a href="https://econtwitter.net/@mwt" title="mwt@econtwitter.net"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/225507-48-20240130182502.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Matthew W. Thomas" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Matthew W. Thomas</a><div><a href="https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/111857279330003690" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/28285" title="phil_stevens@mastodon.nz">Phil Stevens :tinoflag:</a></li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/90000" title="gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green">Gerry McGovern</a></li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/104190" title="jackofalltrades@mas.to">Jack of all trades</a></li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/136420" title="fantasticaleconomics@geekdom.social">Kyle Montanio</a></li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/150334" title="geofcox@climatejustice.social">GeofCox</a></li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/154795" title="504dr@climatejustice.social">504DR</a></li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/202158" title="phiofx@hachyderm.io">phiofx</a></li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades">@jackofalltrades</a> I see these as two very different things. If the field successfully rejected all flawed research, it would also reject lots of innovative, important research. A lot of initial attempts are more flawed than iterative improvements in a mature field. </p><p>It's exactly because being in the mainstream is *not* so prestigious that I am suspicious of work that is below the bar.</p><p><a href="https://geekdom.social/@FantasticalEconomics">@FantasticalEconomics</a> <a href="https://mastodon.tedomum.net/@lienrag">@lienrag</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/@phiofx">@phiofx</a> <a href="https://mastodon.nz/@phil_stevens">@phil_stevens</a> <a href="https://climatejustice.social/@GeofCox">@GeofCox</a> <a href="https://climatejustice.social/@504DR">@504DR</a> <a href="https://mastodon.green/@gerrymcgovern">@gerrymcgovern</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/2648295#notice-5301972">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-02-04T20:14:24+09:00" title="Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 20:14:24 JST">about 10 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://econtwitter.net/@mwt/111858227784406994" rel="external" title="Sent from econtwitter.net via ActivityPub">econtwitter.net</a></span></span><a href="https://econtwitter.net/@mwt/111858227784406994">permalink</a></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Matthew W. Thomas (mwt@econtwitter.net)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 20:14:24 JSTMatthew W. Thomas
in reply to
@jackofalltrades I see these as two very different things. If the field successfully rejected all flawed research, it would also reject lots of innovative, important research. A lot of initial attempts are more flawed than iterative improvements in a mature field.
It's exactly because being in the mainstream is *not* so prestigious that I am suspicious of work that is below the bar.
@FantasticalEconomics @lienrag @phiofx @phil_stevens @GeofCox @504DR @gerrymcgovern
In conversationabout 10 months ago from econtwitter.netpermalink

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice