Berna Devezer
banner
devezer.bsky.social
Berna Devezer
@devezer.bsky.social
Metascientist @ uidaho. I work at the intersection of behavioral sciences, statistics, and philosophy. Love thinking and talking about science. Post lots of cat and food pics. Allergic to unsolicited advice.
not at all inaccurate!
November 21, 2025 at 3:00 AM
LOL
November 21, 2025 at 1:16 AM
Let me tell you: They're not even close and my version connecting the two was definitely better 😂
November 21, 2025 at 12:53 AM
anyhow apparently now i'm watching another new show 🤷🏻‍♀️
November 21, 2025 at 12:49 AM
Thanks! It kinda clicked in my mind when I came up with that description.
November 20, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Oooh that looks neat!
November 20, 2025 at 8:55 PM
😂
November 20, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Every. Time.
November 20, 2025 at 3:36 PM
The Lewis one. Didn't have anything to do with pH measure.
November 20, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Apparently!
November 20, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Yikes first I thought the question was about "hello" but then I looked behind 👀
November 20, 2025 at 6:23 AM
Yup we need to not only disclose and evaluate our reliances but also learn not to perform research that heavily relies on unverifiable or loose foundations. Of course that too depends on our careful, diligent, and honest analysis of those reliances.
November 20, 2025 at 6:18 AM
Perhaps we could then even distinguish between theoretical reliance (e.g., what's load-bearing for one's hypotheses?) and empirical reliance (what's load bearing for valid inference?), and that would inform our assessment of the strength of scientific inference, severity of the tests, etc.
November 20, 2025 at 5:34 AM
Thanks for sharing. Indeed, along the same lines.
November 20, 2025 at 5:26 AM
perfect. no notes.
November 20, 2025 at 5:21 AM
makes you appreciate the humble honesty of pie charts
November 20, 2025 at 5:16 AM
Amen!!
November 20, 2025 at 4:26 AM
I think that's just an example of why it's not a good idea to take things out of context.
November 20, 2025 at 4:25 AM
actively verify the load-bearing kind by careful empirical and theoretical evaluation. That's the kind of work we must read with intent and caution. This should be an essential step in the scientific activity and is part of how we can contribute to self-correction of the scientific process.
November 20, 2025 at 4:22 AM
I'll come back to this idea because that complements something that's been brewing in my mind for some time. Some needed resolution in our citation practices where we explicitly distinguish between "load-bearing" work on which our inferences rely and others (kitchen sink citations). And the need to
November 20, 2025 at 4:22 AM