Nullius in Verba

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 pro...

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 scien...

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 s...

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...

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...

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 logic...

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...

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...

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 Kond...

Medawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31.

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...

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),...

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...

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...

Boring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273

Boring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273

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/englishmenofscie00g...

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....

Bunge, M. (1959). Why metascience? Metascientific Queries (pp. 3-27). Charles C Thomas. 

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. Per...

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 of...

This is the final installment of the three-part series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.

This is the second part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia .

This is the first part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia . 

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...