Nullius in Verba
Nullius in Verba is a podcast about science—what it is and what it could be. It is hosted by Smriti Mehta from UC Berkeley and Daniël Lakens from Eindhoven University of Technology.
Episodes
Episode 79: Dissensio - II
In this episode, we continue our discussion of disagreement in science, shifting the conversation from why it matters to how to do it well.
Shownotes
Paul Graham. (2008). How to disagree.
Rapoport's Rules.
Cass Sunstien. The Rapoport Rules.
Preregistration is redundant, at best.
An Evidence-Based Critique of the Cass Review
Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved
Episode 78: Dissensio - I
This is a two-part episode on the role of disagreement in science. In the first part, we discuss the "why," before moving on to the "how" in the next episode. Enjoy.
Shownotes
Dellsén, F., & Baghramian, M. (2021). Disagreement in science: Introduction to the special issue. Synthese, 198(Suppl 25), 6011-6021.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scie
Episode 77: Miscitatio
In this episode, we discuss the problem of miscitation. How often are citations to the scientific literature outright misleading? Do we really need to spell out that people are supposed to read what they cite? What can we learn from other fields? Or should we just live with the fact that a decent percentage of citations in the literature are wrong? Enjoy.
Careless citations don't just spread
Episode 76: Incitamenta - II
In this two-part episode, we discuss incentives in science and academia. We discuss the various incentives in science, including recognition, citations, money, and the kick in the discovery.
Shownotes
Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 377–390.
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists
Episode 75: Incitamenta - I
In this two-part episode, we discuss incentives in science and academia. We discuss the various incentives in science, including recognition, citations, money, and the kick in the discovery.
Shownotes
Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 377–390.
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists
Episode 74: Notiones Vague
In this episode, we discuss the problems associated with vague concepts in psychological science. We talk about the jingle-jangle fallacy, the trade-off between broad concepts and more precise concepts, if we should generate databases of conceptual definitions, and how the reward structures can get in the way of specifying concepts clearly.
Shownotes
Aikins, H. A. (1902). The principles of logi
Episode 73: Scientismus - II
In this episode, we continue our discussion of scientism. We talk about 6 problems with scientism that have been raised by Susan Haack, if we should feel bad about having some sympathy for scientism, and whether the contributions of all scientifici disciplines deserved the label of 'knowledge'. Enjoy.
References:
Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme, 3(1), 75–95. htt
Episode 72: Scientismus - I
In this two-part episode, we delve into the topic of scientism. Is science the best way to generate knowledge? Or are we giving too much deference to science if we believe this? In this first part, we discuss what scientism is, what - if anything - is wrong with scientism, and whether it is bad to be a scien-ti-sim-ist?
References:
Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme
Episode 71: Commentarius Scientificus: Fraus?
In this episode, we discuss "Is the scientific paper a fraud?" by Sir Peter Medawar.
Shownotes
Medawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31.
Ross, G. R., Meloy, M. G., & Bolton, L. E. (2021). Disorder and downsizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 959–977.
The footnote reads: "Like many consumers, we were inspired by Marie Ko
Prologus 71: Is the Scientific Paper A Fraud (P. Medawar)
Medawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31.
Episode 70: Scientia Tacita
In this episode, we try to make the concept of tacit knowledge explicit. How much of our scientific knowledge depends on knowledge that we can't communicate directly? How can we replicate studies, if they might rely on tacit knowledge? And why has the concept itself not been made more explicit in the last 45 years? Enjoy.
Collins, H. (2012). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago P
Episode 69: Fraus P-Valoris - II
In this episode, we continue the discussion on p-hacking. Were the accusations of p-hacking valid? And how can one avoid said accusations? What are the reasons for p-hacking? And what are some solutions?
Shownotes
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6)
Episode 68: Fraus P-Valoris - I
In this two-part episode, we delve into the phenomenon of p-hacking. What are the various terms used to describe practices that inflate error rates? How does terminology shape our understanding and bring about change? What are its necessary and sufficient conditions, and which practices are most common?
Shownotes
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the
Episode 67: Investigatio Inhonesta
In this episode, we discuss unethical research. What are some examples of egregious violations of ethical guidelines? What are some more subtle ways in which research can be unethical?And what should we do with results obtained through unethical research?
Shownotes
The Nuremberg Code
The Declaration of Helsinki
Three Identical Strangers
The ethical implications of the "Monster Study"
'Little Al
Episode 66: Psychologia Controversiae
Boring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273
Prologus 66: The Psychology of Controversy (E. G. Boring)
Boring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273
Episode 65: Scientia de Scientia - II
In the second episode on metascience, we discuss the benefits of metascientific study according to Mario Bunge, some key milestones in sociology, psychology, and anthropology of science, and whether there should be a science of the science of science.
Shownotes
Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. McMillian & Co. https://archive.org/details/englishmenofscie00
Episode 64: Scientia de Scientia - I
In the first part of this two-part episode, we explore the foundations of metascience—what it is, how it relates to and differs from the history and philosophy of science, and why understanding its philosophical roots matters. We also discuss the “four pillars” of the field and whether formal experience is necessary to contribute meaningfully to metascientific work.
Shownotes
Gholson, B., Jr, W
Prologus 64: Why Metascience? (M. Bunge)
Bunge, M. (1959). Why metascience? Metascientific Queries (pp. 3-27). Charles C Thomas.
Episode 63: Experimenta Praematura
In this episode we discuss whether psychology is engaging in premature experimentation. Are experiments overused, and should we make greater use of other approaches to knowledge generation? If so, which methods should we use instead? And what can we learn from the way Martians would fund research on soccer? Enjoy.
Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch.
Episode 62: Experimenta Exploratoria
In this episode we discuss exploratory experimentation, an iterative process used by scientists to better understand phenomena. We ask why exploratory research seems to be valued less in science, the importance of lab notebooks, and what makes for a good exploratory study.
References:
Steinle, F. (2016). Exploratory experiments: Ampère, Faraday, and the origins of electrodynamics. University o
Episode 61: Septem Vacae Sacrae III
This is the final installment of the three-part series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.
Episode 60: Septem Vacae Sacrae II
This is the second part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.
Episode 59: Septem Vacae Sacrae I
This is the first part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.
Episode 58: Communicatio Scientiae
In this episode, we discuss science communication. What is the purpose of science communication? Who does or should engage in it? Are there negative consequences of communicating science to the public? And what should we discuss over coffee and sandwiches?
Shownotes
Joubert, M. (2019). Beyond the Sagan effect. Nature Astronomy, 3(2), 131-132.
Martinez-Conde, S. (2016). Has contemporary academia
Episode 57: Censura
Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives Conference: https://dornsife.usc.edu/cesr/censorship-in-the-sciences-interdisciplinary-perspectives/
How Woke Warriors Destroyed Anthropology - Elizabeth Weiss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpWN_CsuiRc&t=392s
Clark, C. J., Jussim, L., Frey, K., Stevens, S. T., Al-Gharbi, M., Aquino, K., ... & von Hippel, W. (2023). Prosocia
Episode 56: Cur Plerumque Investigatio Publica Falsa Est
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713
Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens, A. C. J. W. (2007). Most Pub
Prologus 56: Probability Pyramiding (A. Neher)
In preparation for our discussion of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis from 2005, we read a very similar paper published 40 years earlier:
Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713
Episode 55: Pseudoscientia
In this episode, we discuss what separates science from pseudoscience and touch upon the demarcation problem, the recent controversial podcast called the Telepathy Tapes, and the movie Ghostbusters. Enjoy.
Shownotes
McLean v. Arkansas
Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2019). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press.
Report of the R
Episode 54: Fabulae Coniurationis
Conspiracy Stories Show Notes:
Zeitgeist documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film_series)
Podcast Drang naar Samenhang: https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/drang-naar-samenhang/id1584797552
This is not a conspiracy theory documentary. https://www.everythingisaremix.info/tinact
Parker, M. (2000). Human Science as Conspiracy Theory. The Sociological Review, 48(2_suppl), 191-20
Episode 53: Fraus - II
Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1983). Betrayers of the truth. New York : Simon and Schuster. http://archive.org/details/betrayersoftruth00broa
Wolfgang Stroebe, Tom Postmes, & Russell Spears. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687
Zotero can track if you are citing
Episode 52: Fraus - I
Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes.
Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856
Grievance studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
It is legal to own and/or read Mein Kampf in The Net
Episode 51: Quinquagesimus - II
In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to Don Moore, Leif Nelson, Henry Wyneken, Charlotte Pennington, and Karan Paranganat for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes!
Episode 50: Quinquagesimus - I
In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to James Steele, Peder Isager, and Simen Leithe Tajet for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes!
Shownotes
Roger Scruton Quote
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review
Episode 49: Valor Scientiae Psychologicae
You can listen to the podcast More of a Comment Than a Question here: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/
Our joint episode is a response to the episode ‘Final Final Final Comments’: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/16055645-final-final-final-comments
Prologus 49: We Have to Break Up (R. B. Cialdini)
In preparation for our next episode, a joint recording with our friends from More of a Comment than a Question, we read a paper by Robert Cialdini about the value of social psychology for the general public.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We Have to Break Up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01091.x
Episode 48: Defectum
How I Fail. Blog by Veronika Cheplygina https://veronikach.com/category/how-i-fail/
Arkin, R. (2011). Most Underappreciated: 50 Prominent Social Psychologists Describe Their Most Unloved Work. Oxford University Press.
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
Sharpe, D
Episode 47: Inductio et Deductio
In this episode, we delve into induction and deduction and talk further about issues related to generalizability.
Shownotes
Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (1953). Hutchinson & Co. (Originally published in 1935)
Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e1.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American psychologist,
Episode 46: Invaliditas Externa
In this episode, we discuss the paper "In defense of external invalidity" by Douglas Mook.
Shownotes
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387.
Mook, D. G. (1989). The myth of external validity. Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life, 25-43.
The case of Phineas Gage was written up: Harlow, J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the
Prologus 46: In Defense of External Invalidity (D. G. Mook)
A reading of the paper In Defense of External Invalidty by Douglas G. Mook, which will be discussed in the next episode.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
Episode 45: Apprenticiatus
In this episode, we discuss the role of apprenticeship in training scientists and researchers. What’s the difference between traditional apprenticeship and cognitive apprenticeship? Does graduate training live up to its promise as an apprenticeship model? What can we do to improve the modeling of skills that are to be taught during graduate training?
Shownotes
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & H
Episode 44: Reprehensio Scientiae Aperta
This is a live episode, recorded in Växjö, Sweden (Linnaeus university) on September 24, 2024, at the 5th meeting of the Open Science Community Sweden and the Swedish Reproducibility Network. Thanks to André Kalmendal at Mono (https://monovaxjo.se) for recording the episode.
Episode 43: Historia Casus Methodi Scientifica
In this episode, we discuss the paper "A case history in scientific method" by B. F. Skinner
Shownotes
Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American psychologist, 11(5), 221.
Richter, C. P. (1953). Free research versus design research. Science, 118(3056), 91–93.
https://archive.org/details/WaldenTwoChapter01
Prologus 43: A Case Study in Scientific Method (Skinner)
In preparation for the next episode, in which we discuss this paper, here is a reading of:
Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221-233.
Episode 42: Aestimatio Scriptorum
In today’s episode, we discuss critically reading and appraising scientific articles. How do we select which articles to read carefully? Which heuristics are useful for assessing paper quality? And do open science practices actually lead to better quality papers? Enjoy.
Shownotes
Bacon, F. (1625). Of Studies.
PNAS Submissions contributed by NAS members "The contributing member submits the manu
Episode 41: Sodalitates Academicae
In this episode, we talk about academic societies, professional organizations, and academic advocacy groups, focusing primarily on the discipline of psychology. What are their roles and responsibilities? Is it necessary for researchers to join such organizations? And should we bring back scholarly soirees? Enjoy.
Shownotes
Royal Society Referee Reports
Psychological Science
APA Divisions
Co
Episode 40: Tabula de Ethicis Recensionibus
In this episode, we discuss review boards for research with human subjects. Are they necessary? Are they efficient? Are scientists well equipped to make judgements about ethics? And are economists more ethical than psychologists?
Shownotes
Whitney, S. N. (2015). Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members. Springer.
Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Instituti
Episode 39: Activismus
In this episode, we discuss activism in science. How do political and personal values affect science? When is activism just part of the job? And should one be careful about activism in the classroom? Enjoy.
Shownotes:
Frisby, C. L., Redding, R. E., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2023). Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: An Introduction. In Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nat
Episode 38 - Replicatio - II
In this episode, we continue our discussion of replications. We talk about how to analyze replication studies, which studies are worth replicating, and what is the status of replications in other scientific disciplines.
Shownotes
Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087978
Smith, N. C. (1970). Re
Episode 37: Replicatio - I
In the next two episodes, we will discuss replication studies, which are essential to building reliable scientific knowledge.
Shownotes
Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087978
Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25(10),
Prologus 37: Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research (N. C. Smith)
Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25(10), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774
Episode 36: Leges Eponymae
In this episode, we discuss a fun mix of eponymous laws, which are laws named after individuals who postulate them.
Shownotes
Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas Theorem and the Matthews Effect. Social Forces, 74(2), 379–422.
Stigler, S.
Episode 35: Praedictio Clinica Versus Statistica
In this final episode of the three-part series on the Philosophical Psychology lectures by Paul Meehl, we discuss lectures 6-8, which cover the ten obfuscating factors in "soft areas" of psychology and a host of advice Meehl provides for researchers, reviewers, editors, and educators on how to improve practice.
Shownotes
Krefeld-Schwalb, A., Sugerman, E. R., & Johnson, E. J. (2024). Exposin
Episode 34: Aestimatio et Emendatio Theoriarum
In this episode, we continue the discussion of Meehl's Philosophy of Psychology course, focusing on lectures 3, 4, and 5.
Shownotes
The quote "Don't make a mockery of honest ad-hockery" is probably from Clark Glymour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Glymour
Good, I. J. (1965). The Estimation of Probabilities: An Essay on Modern Bayesian Methods. M.I.T. Press.
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward
Prologus 34: Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science (Faust & Meehl)
Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1992). Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science: Some illustrations. Behavior Therapy, 23(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80381-8
Episode 33: Risicae Theoreticae et Asterisci Tabulares
Video lectures: https://meehl.umn.edu/video
Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1992). Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science: Some illustrations. Behavior Therapy, 23(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80381-8
Serlin, R. C., & Lapsley, D. K. (1985). Rationality in psychological research: The good-enough principle. American Psychologi
Prologus 33: Paul E. Meehl
In advance of the next three episodes discussing the Philosophical Psychology lectures by Paul E. Meehl, we present a brief reading from his autobiography in A history of psychology in autobiography.
Meehl, P. E. (1989). Paul E. Meehl. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 8, pp. 337–389). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Episode 32: Impartialitas
In this episode, we discuss objectivity and disinterestedness in science. We talk about norms, values, interests, and objectivity in research practice, peer review, and hiring decisions. Is it possible to be completely objective? Is objectivity a feature of epistemic products or epistemic processes? And most importantly, how would you objectively rate this podcast?
Shownotes
Armstrong, J. S. (19
Episode 31: Criticismus
In this episode, we discuss the role of criticism in science. When is criticism constructive as opposed to obsessive? What are the features of fair and useful scientific criticism? And should we explicitly teach junior researchers to both give and accept criticism?
Shownotes:
Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes.
Prasad, Vinay, and John
Episode 30: Theoria Aedificans - Pars II
In this episode, we continue discussing Dubin’s 8-step method for theory building. We discuss the measurement of theoretical constructs, using logical propositions to make falsifiable predictions from theories, and the importance of specifying boundary conditions.
Shownotes
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory Construction and Model-building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientis
Episode 29: Theoria Aedificans - Pars I
In this episode we discussed the 8-step method of theory building proposed by Robin Dubin in his classic 1969 book Theory Building.
Shownotes
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Free Press. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/160506.html
Lynham, S. A. (2002). Quantitative Research and Theory Building: Dubin’s Method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242–276. https://doi.o
Episode 28: Scientia Cumulativa
In this episode, we discuss the barriers to cumulative science, including inconsistent measurement tools, overreliance on single studies, and the large volume of research publications. Can replications, interdisciplinary collaborations, and prospective meta-analyses help us solve this issue? Can AI solve all our problems? And do most scientists treat their theories like toothbrushes?
Shownotes
Prologus 28: Chaos in the Brickyard (B. K. Forscher)
A reading of:
Forscher, B. K. (1963). Chaos in the Brickyard. Science, 142(3590), 339–339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.142.3590.339
Episode 27: Vocans Ictus Tuos - Pars II
In today’s episode, we continue our conversation about preregistration. How flexible can we be when we preregister, without increasing flexibility in our analysis? How well do people preregister, and what does a good preregistration look like? And how do we deal with deviations from preregistrations?
Shownotes
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Free Press. His full quote is: "There is no more
Episode 26: Vocans Ictus Tuos - Pars I
In this two part episode we discuss the fine art of preregistration. We go back into the history of preregistration, its evolution, and current use. Do we preregister to control the Type 1 error rate, or to show that we derived our prediction from theory a priori? Can and should we preregister exploratory or secondary data analysis? And how severe is the issue of severe testing?
Shownotes
Clinic
Episode 25: Reverentia Ad Auctoritatem
In the first episode of 2024, we discuss the double-edged sword: reverence to authority. Should scientists respect others on whose shoulders they stand? Or should they be wary of appeal to authority? How should scientists deal with other sources of authority in science, like for example, the government or academic societies? And how can we differentiate true expertise from mere authority? Enjoy.
Prologus 25: The Fixation of Belief (C. S. Peirce)
The Fixation of Belief. Charles S. Peirce. Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), 1-15.
http://peirce.org/writings/p107.html
Episode 24: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars II
In this second installment of The Anticreativity Letters, we continue discussing the Tempter's tactics for stifling creativity and how to overcome them.
Episode 23: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars I
In the first of a two-part episode, we discuss The Anticreativity Letters by Richard Nisbett, in which a senior "tempter" advises a junior tempter on ways to prevent a young psychologist from being a productive and creative scientist.
Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1078–1082.
BMJ Christmas issue:
Prologus 23: The Anticreativity Letters (R. E. Nisbett)
A reading of:
Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1078–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1078
Episode 22: Magisterium
In today’s episode, we discuss the role of mentorship in academia. What are the characteristics of a good mentor-mentee relationship? What are the qualities of good mentors and good mentees? Does mentorship play a role in the development of scientific knowledge? And could mentors and mentees benefit from couples therapy?
Note: D.I.H.C is pronounced 'dick' but this is meant to be a family-friendly
Episode 21: Verifica Sed Confide
In this episode, we discuss the role of trust in science. Why should we verify but trust other scientists? What are the prerequisites for building trust within the scientific community? Who is ultimately responsible for verifying our claims and practices that bolster those claims? And should we give personality tests to everyone who enters academia?
Shownotes
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trus
Prologus 21: Role of Trust in Knowledge (J. Hardwig)
In advance of our episode Verify but Trust, a reading of John Hardwig's paper The Role of Trust in Science.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.
Episode 20: Recensio Aequalium
In today’s episode, we discuss the peer review process---its history, its present, and its future. How does peer review work? How long has it existed in its current form? Should reviews be open and signed? Should reviewers be paid for their hard labor? Should we just abandon the peer review process, or does it have a positive role to play?
Shownotes
Peer Community in Registered Reports: https:/
Episode 19: Quantifauxcation
In this episode, we discuss Quantifauxcation, described by statistician Philip Stark as “situations in which a number is, in effect, made up, and then is given credence merely because it is quantitative.” We give examples of quantifauxcation in psychology, including errors of the third kind. We spend the second half of the podcast discussing how to develop quantitative measures that are meaningful
Prologus 19: Problem-Centering vs. Mean-Centering in Science (A. H. Maslow)
In preparation for a discussion on Quantifauxcation, a reading of 'Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science' by Abraham H. Maslow (1946).
Maslow, A. H. (1946). Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science. Philosophy of Science, 13(4), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1086/286907
Episode 18: Vitia Vocationalis
In today’s episode, we discuss intellectual vices. How can we tell the difference between justified confidence and unjustified arrogance? How do we deal with feelings of envy or negative comparison with other scientists? What is the difference between building one’s career and careerism? And what do we do about scientists who do not care about the truth?
Shownotes
Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich
Episode 17: Snobismus
In this episode, we discuss scientific snobbery and the ways in which it affects our interactions with and perceptions of other scientists. What are the reasons for hierarchies among different disciplines, institutions, and approaches to science? What are some ways in which snobbery manifests in science? And is it snobby to not want to present scientific posters? Enjoy.
Shownotes:
Ego and Mat
Episode 16: Vetus Crisi Replicatio
In this episode, we continue our conversation on the replication crisis⏤Which methodological, theoretical, and practical concerns did psychologists raise half a century ago? What has changed, and what remains the same, during the current crisis?
Shownotes
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their i
Prologus 16: Investigator Data Analysis Effect (T. X. Barber)
Reading of the chapter "Investigator Data Analysis Effect" from the book:
Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.
