Shownotes:

• Bush, Vannevar. (1945). Science The Endless Frontier. http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.212068
• Bush, Vannevar. (1970). Pieces of the action. New York, Morrow. http://archive.org/details/piecesofaction00bush
• Science: A Golden Age https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Science-A-New-Golden-Age.pdf 

Shownotes

• Auspurg, K. (2025). Robustness is better assessed with a few thoughtful models than with billions of regressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(43), e2521917122.
• Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, (366), 92–96.
• Dochtermann, N. A., & Jenkins, S. H. (2011). Developing multiple hypotheses in behavioral ecology. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 37–45.
• Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2025). The credibility gap: Evaluating and improving empirical research in the social sciences. Routledge.
• Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Department of Statistics, Columbia University, 348(1-17), 3.
• Knief, U., & Forstmeier, W. (2025). Are our 95% CIs only worth 45% confidence? bioRxiv, 2025-08.
• Lakens, D., Rasti, S., & Tunç, M. N. (2026). There is only one correct analysis. (Preprint)
• Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science, 146(3642), 347–353.
• Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2020). Specification curve analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1208–1214.
• Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712.
• Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press.

The Babbage quote is from Babbage in November 1839, recalling events in 1821; quoted in Harry Wilmot Buxton and Anthony Hyman (1988), Memoir of the Life and Labours of the Late Charles Babbage.

Alfred Whitehead: An Introduction to Mathematics (1911)

Blog about AI references: Evaluating Dr. Cuddy’s Claim that the Debunking of Power Posing is a Myth. https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2026/05/evaluating-dr-cuddys-claim-that.html

Metacheck: DeBruine L, Mesquida C, Werner J, Lakens D (2026). metacheck: Check Research Outputs for Best Practices. doi:10.5281/zenodo.20704754, R package version 0.1.0, https://scienceverse.org/metacheck

Cummins, J., Clarke, B., Hussey, I., & Elson, M. (2026). RegCheck: A tool for structured comparisons between study registrations and papers (arXiv:2601.13330). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.13330

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 problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 74–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280600681248
• Neyman, J. (1961). Silver Jubilee of My Dispute With Fisher. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 3, 145–154.

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 scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
• Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
• Seidel, M. (2021). Kuhn’s two accounts of rational disagreement in science: an interpretation and critique. Synthese, 198(25), 6023-6051.
• Shaw, J. (2021). Feyerabend and manufactured disagreement: reflections on expertise, consensus, and science policy. Synthese, 198(25), 6053-6084.

• Careless citations don't just spread scientific myths – they can make them stronger (Nature)
• Cobb, C. L., Crumly, B., Montero-Zamora, P., Schwartz, S. J., & Martínez Jr, C. R. (2024). The problem of miscitation in psychological science: Righting the ship. American Psychologist, 79(2), 299–311.
• Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Leonard, S. R., & Simmering, V. R. (2025). Cognitive biases and research miscitations. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12589.
• Qinyue Liu, Amira Barhoumi, Cyril Labbé. (2024). Miscitations in scientific papers: Dataset and detection. International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval. Glasgow, United Kingdom.
• Lazonder, A. W., & Janssen, N. (2022). Quotation accuracy in educational research articles. Educational Research Review, 35(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100430
• James, W. (1914). The energies of men. New York : Moffat, Yard and Company. http://archive.org/details/energiesofmen00jameuoft
• Beyerstein, B.L. (1999) Whence cometh the myth that we only use ten percent of our brains? In, S. Della Sala (Ed.), Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries
• Jergas, H., & Baethge, C. (2015). Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 3, e1364. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1364
• Bruton, S. V., Macchione, A. L., Brown, M., & Hosseini, M. (2025). Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2
• Simkin, M., & Roychowdhury, V. (2006). Do You Sincerely Want to Be Cited? Or: Read Before You Cite. Significance, 3(4), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2006.00202.x
• Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Leonard, S. R., & Simmering, V. R. (2025). Cognitive biases and research miscitations. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12589. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12589
• Bluebook: https://www.legalbluebook.com

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 at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 699–714.
• Merton, R. K. (1963). Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 4(2), 237–282.
• Stephan, P. (2015). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.
• Tal Yarkoni - No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you
• Tom Leher - Lobachevsky (1953)

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 at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 699–714.
• Merton, R. K. (1963). Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 4(2), 237–282.
• Stephan, P. (2015). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.

Shownotes

• Aikins, H. A. (1902). The principles of logic. H. Holt and Company. https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.principlesoflogi00aiki/
• Chalmers, D. J. (2025). What is conceptual engineering and what should it be? Inquiry, 68(9), 2902–2919. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1817141
• Gerring, J. (1999). What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235246
• Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella Advocates Versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle Model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199
• Sartori, G. (1970). Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. The American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356
• Thorndike, E. L. (Edward L. (with University of California Libraries). (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York : Science Press. http://archive.org/details/theoryofmentalso00thor
• Truman Lee Kelley, (1927). Interpretation of education measurements. World book company. http://archive.org/details/bwb_P9-AQI-186
• APA Dictionary of Psychology: https://dictionary.apa.org/ 

References:

Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme, 3(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20123151

Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68(9), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032850

Peels, R. (2023). Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: What science can learn from mainstream religion. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246

de Ridder, Jeroen. “Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3, no. 12 (2014): 23-39. https://social-epistemology.com/2014/11/03/science-and-scientism-in-popular-science-writing-jeroen-de-ridder/ 

Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 615–643.

Mizrahi, M. (2017). What’s so bad about scientism? Social Epistemology, 31(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1297505

Hayek, F. A. (1952). The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. 

Rulkens, C. C. S., Peels, R., Stols-Witlox, M., Meloni, S., Lechner, I. M., & Bouter, L. (2025). The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: A replication study in art history. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2

References:

Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme, 3(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20123151

Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68(9), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032850

Peels, R. (2023). Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: What science can learn from mainstream religion. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246

de Ridder, Jeroen. “Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3, no. 12 (2014): 23-39. https://social-epistemology.com/2014/11/03/science-and-scientism-in-popular-science-writing-jeroen-de-ridder/ 

Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 615–643.

Mizrahi, M. (2017). What’s so bad about scientism? Social Epistemology, 31(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1297505

Hayek, F. A. (1952). The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. 

Rulkens, C. C. S., Peels, R., Stols-Witlox, M., Meloni, S., Lechner, I. M., & Bouter, L. (2025). The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: A replication study in art history. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2

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 Kondo to declutter our homes—and also to conduct this research! Note that our work is not a test of the KonMari method per se but rather an investigation of ideas—on dis/order, waste aversion, and selection/rejection (as these quotes illustrate)—inspired by her writing and the surprising lack of research on downsizing."
• Karataş, M., & Cutright, K. M. (2023). Thinking about God increases acceptance of artificial intelligence in decision-making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(33), e2218961120. 
• Richard Feynman on finding new laws

Collins, H. (2012). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo8461024.html 

Franklin, A., & Collins, H. (2016). Two Kinds of Case Study and a New Agreement. In T. Sauer & R. Scholl (Eds.), The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies (pp. 95–121). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_6 

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo6035368.html

Collins, H. M. (1975). The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics. Sociology, 9(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857500900202 

Gerholm, T. (1990). On Tacit Knowledge in Academia. European Journal of Education, 25(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1503316 

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), 562–571.
• Introduction to the Special Section on Research Practices (Barbara Spellman)

Shownotes

• Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534.
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.
• Stefan, A. M., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2023). Big little lies: A compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 220346.
• John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532.
• Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52.

Shownotes

• The Nuremberg Code
• The Declaration of Helsinki
• Three Identical Strangers
• The ethical implications of the "Monster Study"
• 'Little Albert' regains his identity
• Caplan, A. L. (2021). How should we regard information gathered in Nazi experiments?. AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(1), 55-58.
• Is it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives?

Shownotes

• Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. McMillian & Co. https://archive.org/details/englishmenofscie00galtuoft
• Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage Publications. 
• Candolle, A. de (with Fisher - University of Toronto). (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siècles; suivie d’autres études sur des sujets scientifiques, en particulier sur la sélection dans l’espèce humaine. Genève, Georg. http://archive.org/details/histoiredesscie00cand
• Vaesen, K. (2021). French Neopositivism and the Logic, Psychology, and Sociology of Scientific Discovery. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 11(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/712934

Shownotes

• Gholson, B., Jr, W. R. S. J., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.). (1989). Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience. Cambridge University Press.
• Bunge, M. (1959). Why metascience? Metascientific Queries (pp. 3-27). Charles C Thomas.

References:

Steinle, F. (2016). Exploratory experiments: Ampère, Faraday, and the origins of electrodynamics. University of Pittsburgh press.

Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221–233.

Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.

Ditroilo, M., Mesquida ,Cristian, Abt ,Grant, & and Lakens, D. (2025). Exploratory research in sport and exercise science: Perceptions, challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 43(12), 1108–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2486871

Paul Meehl's Philosophical Psychology Lectures: https://meehl.umn.edu/video

Höfler, M., Scherbaum, S., Kanske, P., McDonald, B., & Miller, R. (2022). Means to valuable exploration: I. The blending of confirmation and exploration and how to resolve it. Meta-Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2837

Shownotes

• Joubert, M. (2019). Beyond the Sagan effect. Nature Astronomy, 3(2), 131-132.
• Martinez-Conde, S. (2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect?. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077-2082.
• Turner, J. (1962). Some Coffee and Sandwiches? Science, 136, 231-231. 
• Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14062-14068.
• Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
• Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14033-14039.

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). Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(48), e2301642120. 

The vertebra of Galileo in Palace Bo in Padova: https://heritage.unipd.it/en/vertebra-galileo/ 

The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19723-8 

Stefano Comino, Alberto Galasso, Clara Graziano, Censorship, industry structure, and creativity: evidence from the Catholic Inquisition in Renaissance Venice, The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2024, ewae015, https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewae015 

Bernouilli’s fallacy https://aubreyclayton.com/bernoulli 

Jerzy Neyman: A Positive Role Model in the History of Frequentist Statistics https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2021/09/jerzy-neyman-positive-role-model-in.html

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 Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way. PLOS Medicine, 4(2), e28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028

Stroebe, W. (2016). Are most published social psychological findings false? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.017

Diekmann, A. (2011). Are Most Published Research Findings False? Jahrbücher Für Nationalökonomie Und Statistik, 231(5–6), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-606

Goodman, S., & Greenland, S. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Problems in the analysis. PLoS Medicine, 4(4), e168.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Author’s reply to Goodman and Greenland. PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e215.

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

Shownotes

• McLean v. Arkansas 
• Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2019). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press.
• Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate Animal Magnetism
• The Telepathy Tapes
• Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit.
• Moberger, V. (2020). Bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86(5), 595–611.
• Ghostbusters (1984) - Venkman's ESP Test Scene
•  

• 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), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2000.tb03527.x
• Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
• Tage-gate episode of More of a Comment than a Question:  https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/5511751-tage-gate 

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 retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/06/12/want-to-check-for-retractions-in-your-personal-library-and-get-alerts-for-free-now-you-can/

100% CI blog: The Untold Mystery of Rogue RA https://www.the100.ci/2024/12/18/rogue-ra/

Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193

Senior RIKEN scientist involved in stem cell scandal commits suicide https://www.science.org/content/article/senior-riken-scientist-involved-stem-cell-scandal-commits-suicide

Kis, A., Tur, E. M., Lakens, D., Vaesen, K., & Houkes, W. (2022). Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0274976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274976

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 Netherlands (and Germany).

Hand, D. (2007). Deception and dishonesty with data: Fraud in science. Significance, 4(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00215.x

Gross, C. (2016). Scientific Misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(Volume 67, 2016), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437

Paolo Macchiarini: https://www.science.org/content/article/macchiarini-guilty-misconduct-whistleblowers-share-blame-new-karolinska-institute

The Truth about China’s Cash-for-Publication Policy: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/12/150506/the-truth-about-chinas-cash-for-publication-policy/

Claudine Gay plagiarism: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2024/01/22/harvard-releases-details-of-claudine-gay-investigation/

Many Co-Authors: https://manycoauthors.org/

Paper describing a replication study where students make up data: Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). The control of the content of conversation through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 25–30.

Francesca Gino defamation case dismissed: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/12/judge-dismisses-gino-lawsuit-defamation-charges/

Retractions in Social Influence of the work of Guéguen: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431408, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431415, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431421

Diederik Stapel’s book: http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf

Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193

Shownotes

• Roger Scruton Quote 
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203
• Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831
• Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 145–168). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n6
• Vincent, S., & O’Mahoney, J. (2017). Critical realism and qualitative research: An introductory overview (G. Grandy, C. Cassell, & A. L. Cunliffe, Eds.; pp. 201–216). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212
• Danermark, B. (2019). Applied interdisciplinary research: A critical realist perspective. Journal of Critical Realism, 18(4), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2019.1644983

Our joint episode is a response to the episode ‘Final Final Final Comments’: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/16055645-final-final-final-comments

• 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

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. (2013). Why the resistance to statistical innovations? Bridging the communication gap. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034177

Anti-Creativity Letters episode: https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/prologus-23-the-anticreativity-letters-r-e-nisbett

Rouder, J. N., Haaf, J. M., & Snyder, H. K. (2019). Minimizing Mistakes in Psychological Science. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918801915

Firestein, S. (2015). Failure: Why Science Is So Successful (First Edition). Oxford University Press.

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, 38(4), 379-387.
• Salmon, W. C. (1981). Rational Prediction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/32.2.115
• Reichenbach, H. (1938) [2006], Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Senn, S. (2007). Statistical issues in drug development (2nd ed). John Wiley & Sons.
• Ernst, M. D. (2004). Permutation Methods: A Basis for Exact Inference. Statistical Science, 19(4), 676–685. 
• Bacon, F. (1620). Instauratio magna [Novum organum]. London: John Bill.
• Urbach, P. (1982). Francis Bacon as a Precursor to Popper. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33(2), 113–132.

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 head. The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (1828-1851), 39(20)

• 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

Shownotes

• Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6-11.
• Gabrys, B. J., & Beltechi, A. (2012). Cognitive apprenticeship: The making of a scientist. In Reshaping doctoral education (pp. 144-155). Routledge.
• Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016). Rigorous science: a how-to guide. MBio, 7(6), 10-1128.
• Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford University Press.
• Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (M. J. Nye, Ed.). University of Chicago Press.

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

Shownotes

• Bacon, F. (1625). Of Studies. 
• PNAS Submissions contributed by NAS members "The contributing member submits the manuscript to PNAS along with the names of at least two experts in the field of the paper who have agreed to review the work and brief comments about why each of those reviewers was chosen."  https://www.pnas.org/pb-assets/authors/ifora-1720190309383.pdf 
• How many p-values just below 0.05 should we expect across multiple tests?  https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-probability-of-p-values-as-function.html 
• Lakens, D. (2024). When and How to Deviate From a Preregistration. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), 117094. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.117094 
• TIER protocol: https://www.projecttier.org/tier-protocol/protocol-4-0/ 
• Gino fraud investigation and excel meta-data: https://datacolada.org/109 
• REAPPRAISED checklist: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03959-6 
• Yang, Z., & Hung, I. W. (2021). Creative thinking facilitates perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 278.

Shownotes

• Royal Society Referee Reports

• Psychological Science

• APA Divisions

• Consistori del Gay Saber

• ReproducibiliTea

• The Royal Society Soirées

Shownotes

• Whitney, S. N. (2015). Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members. Springer.
• Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. JHU Press.
• Kinsey Reports
  • Masters & Johnson
• How Institutional Review Boards can be (and are) Weaponized Against Academic Freedom
• Weaponizing the IRB 2.0
• Psychologists’ Involvement in Torture and the APA. Psychology Today.

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: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (pp. 1-14). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• McCaughey, M. (2023). The Trouble with Scholar-Activists. AAUP. 
• McCaughey, M. (2024). Against Scholar Activists. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. 
• Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2023). Political bias in the social sciences: A critical, theoretical, and empirical review. Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions, 97-146.
• Sargent, R. M. (2012). From Bacon to Banks: The vision and the realities of pursuing science for the common good. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(1), 82-90.
• Weber, M. (1946). Science as a Vocation. In Science and the Quest for Reality (pp. 382-394). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

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), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774
• Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology (New edition). Cambridge Center for Behavioral.
• Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., Babincak, P., … Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687
• Isager, P. M., van Aert, R. C. M., Bahník, Š., Brandt, M. J., DeSoto, K. A., Giner-Sorolla, R., Krueger, J. I., Perugini, M., Ropovik, I., van ’t Veer, A. E., Vranka, M., & Lakens, D. (2023). Deciding what to replicate: A decision model for replication study selection under resource and knowledge constraints. Psychological Methods, 28(2), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000438
• Aldhous, P. (2011). Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition/
• Stanley, D. J., & Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for Replications: Are Yours Realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528518
• Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341
• Nosek, B.A., Errington, T.M. (2017) Reproducibility in Cancer Biology: Making sense of replications. eLife 6:e23383. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23383

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), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774
• Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology (New edition). Cambridge Center for Behavioral.
• Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., Babincak, P., … Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687
• Isager, P. M., van Aert, R. C. M., Bahník, Š., Brandt, M. J., DeSoto, K. A., Giner-Sorolla, R., Krueger, J. I., Perugini, M., Ropovik, I., van ’t Veer, A. E., Vranka, M., & Lakens, D. (2023). Deciding what to replicate: A decision model for replication study selection under resource and knowledge constraints. Psychological Methods, 28(2), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000438
• Aldhous, P. (2011). Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition/
• Stanley, D. J., & Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for Replications: Are Yours Realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528518
• Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341

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. M. (1980). Stigler’s Law of Eponymy*. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 39(1 Series II), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775.x
• Clarke, A. C. (Arthur C. (1962). Profiles of the future: An inquiry into the limits of the possible. New York : Bantam Books. http://archive.org/details/profilesoffuture00clar
• Brandolini’s Law: Based on a tweet, after reading Kahneman Thinking fast and slow: https://twitter.com/ziobrando/status/289635060758507521
• Preston, I. L. (1980). Researchers at the Federal Trade Commission—Peril and Promise. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 3(1), 1–15.
• Twyman’s Law: “The more unusual or interesting the data, the more likely they are to have been the result of an error of one kind or another.” Earliest scholarly reference is in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, Vol 138, No 4, 1975. The Teaching of Statistics by A. S. C. Ehrenberg.
• Bloch, A. (1990). Murphy's law complete: All the reasons why everything goes wrong. Arrow Books Limited. 

Shownotes

• Krefeld-Schwalb, A., Sugerman, E. R., & Johnson, E. J. (2024). Exposing omitted moderators: Explaining why effect sizes differ in the social sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(12), e2306281121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2306281121
• Lakens, D., & Etz, A. J. (2017). Too True to be Bad: When Sets of Studies With Significant and Nonsignificant Findings Are Probably True. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 875–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693058

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 a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820), 1317–1323.

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 Psychologist, 40(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.1.73

Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1

Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–467.

• 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.

Shownotes

• Armstrong, J. S. (1979). Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Science, 25(5), 423–428.
• Declaration of Interest by Stephen Senn: http://senns.uk/Declaration_Interest.htm
• Djørup, S., & Kappel, K. (2013). The norm of disinterestedness in science; a restorative analysis. SATS, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2013-0009
• Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001
• Feyerabend, Paul. "How to defend society against science." Philosophy: Basic Readings (1975): 261-271.
• Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231–19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116
• Janack, M. (2002). Dilemmas of objectivity. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 267-281.
• John, S. (2021). Objectivity in science. Cambridge University Press.
• Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
• Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423
• Mitroff, I. I. (1974). The subjective side of science: A philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo moon scientists (First Edition). Elsevier.
• A Russian polar researcher has been charged trying to stab a colleague to death at a remote Antarctic base https://www.businessinsider.com/sergey-savitsky-alleged-attempted-murder-at-antarctic-bellingshausen-2018-10 
• Stamenkovic, P. (2023). Facts and objectivity in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807

Shownotes:

• Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes.
• Prasad, Vinay, and John PA Ioannidis. "Constructive and obsessive criticism in science." European journal of clinical investigation 52.11 (2022): e13839.
• Lakatos, I. (1968, January). Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (Vol. 69, pp. 149-186). Aristotelian Society, Wiley.
• LOWI: https://lowi.nl/en/home/ As an independent advisory body it plays a role in the complaints procedure about alleged violations of principles of research integrity.
• Holcombe, A. O. (2022). Ad hominem rhetoric in scientific psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12541
• Daniel C. Dennett: I've Been Thinking https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393868050 
• Phillip Stark textbook chapter on logical fallacies: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/reasoning.htm 
• Gelman, A., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2000). Type S error rates for classical and Bayesian single and multiple comparison procedures. Computational Statistics, 15(3), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001800000040
• Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
• PubPeer: https://pubpeer.com

Shownotes

• Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory Construction and Model-building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. Guilford Press.
• McGuire, W. J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: Seven koan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034345
• Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
• Norm Macdonald: The Professor of Logic
• Raven Paradox: https://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Hempels-Ravens-Paradox 
• Pavlov, I. (1936). Bequest of Pavlov to the Academic Youth of His Country. Science, 83(2155), 369–370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.83.2155.369

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.org/10.1177/15222302004003003
• Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30(10), 967.
• Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4), 806–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806
• Swedberg, R. (2014). The art of social theory. Princeton University Press.
• Ben Wright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Drake_Wright
• Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
• Isaac, M. G., Koch, S., & Nefdt, R. (2022). Conceptual engineering: A road map to practice. Philosophy Compass, 17(10), e12879. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12879

Shownotes

• Opening quote by George Sarton
  • Sarton, G. (1927). Introduction to the History of Science (Vol. 376). 
• Is Science Cumulative? a Physicist Viewpoint: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6279-7_10
• Psychological Methods. (2009). Special Issue: Multi-Study Methods for Building a Cumulative Psychological Science.

• Walter Mischel, Becoming a Cumulative Science 

• Dorothy Bishop - Why we need cumulative science (AIMOS)
• Watkins, J. W. (1984). Science and Skepticism. Princeton University Press.

Shownotes

• Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Free Press. His full quote is: "There is no more devastating commendation that the self-designated theorist makes of the researcher than to label his work purely descriptive". 
• Claesen, A., Gomes, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & Vanpaemel, W. (2021). Comparing dream to reality: An assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies. Royal Society Open Science, 8(10), 211037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211037
• Akker, O. van den, Bakker, M., Assen, M. A. L. M. van, Pennington, C. R., Verweij, L., Elsherif, M., Claesen, A., Gaillard, S. D. M., Yeung, S. K., Frankenberger, J.-L., Krautter, K., Cockcroft, J. P., Kreuer, K. S., Evans, T. R., Heppel, F., Schoch, S. F., Korbmacher, M., Yamada, Y., Albayrak-Aydemir, N., … Wicherts, J. (2023). The effectiveness of preregistration in psychology: Assessing preregistration strictness and preregistration-study consistency. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/h8xjw
• Sequential analysis and alpha spending functions https://lakens.github.io/statistical_inferences/10-sequential.html 
• Bishop, D. V. M. (2018). Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2515245918776632. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918776632
• FDAAA Trial Tracker https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net 
• Ensinck, E., & Lakens, D. (2023). An Inception Cohort Study Quantifying How Many Registered Studies are Published. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5hkjz
• Quantitude episode on preregistration https://quantitudepod.org/s3e07-in-defense-of-researcher-degrees-of-freedom/ 
• Lakens, D. (2023). When and How to Deviate from a Preregistration. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ha29k 

Shownotes

• ClinicalTrials.gov
• You can preregister on AsPredicted and the OSF
• Johnson, M. (1975). Models of Control and Control of Bias. European Journal of Parapsychology, 36–44.
• SPIRIT Checklist
• Bishop, D. V. M. (2018). Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918776632
• FDA trials tracker: https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net 
• Ensinck, E., & Lakens, D. (2023). An Inception Cohort Study Quantifying How Many Registered Studies are Published. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5hkjz
• van den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Enting, M., de Jonge, M., Ong, H. H., Rüffer, F., Schoenmakers, M., Stoevenbelt, A. H., Wicherts, J. M., & Bakker, M. (2023). Selective Hypothesis Reporting in Psychology: Comparing Preregistrations and Corresponding Publications. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 25152459231187988. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231187988
• Claesen, A., Gomes, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & Vanpaemel, W. (2021). Comparing dream to reality: An assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies. Royal Society Open Science, 8(10), 211037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211037
• Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412
• Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Johnson, M. (1975). Models of Control and Control of Bias. European Journal of Parapsychology, 36–44.
• de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology. Mouton & Co.
• Claesen, A., Lakens, D., Vanpaemel, W., & Dongen, N. van. (2022). Severity and Crises in Science: Are We Getting It Right When We’re Right and Wrong When We’re Wrong? PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ekhc8

Shownotes

• Frank, P. (1956). The role of authority in the interpretation of science. Synthese, 10, 335–338.
• Barber, B. (1952). Science and the social order. Glencoe, Ill. : Free Press. http://archive.org/details/sciencesocialord0000barb
• Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery. Science, 134(3479), 596–602.
• Kitcher, P. (1992). Authority, deference, and the role of individual reasoning in science. In E. Mcmullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press
• Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73
• The practice of two-spaces after the end of a sentence comes from when type-writers used monospaced typefaces: https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/two-spaces-after-a-period-why-you-should-never-ever-do-it.html 

• http://peirce.org/writings/p107.html 

• 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: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types/christmas-issue
• Quote by Ira Glass: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to-people-who-are-beginners-i-wish

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

Note: D.I.H.C is pronounced 'dick' but this is meant to be a family-friendly podcast :)

Shownotes

• https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-fitness/201303/10-things-your-relationship-needs-thrive

• Roberts, L. R., Tinari, C. M., & Bandlow, R. (2019). An effective doctoral student mentor wears many hats and asks many questions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 133.

• Sarabipour, S., Niemi, N. M., Burgess, S. J., Smith, C. T., Filho, A. W. B., Ibrahim, A., & Clark, K. (2023). Insights from a survey of mentorship experiences by graduate and postdoctoral researchers (p. 2023.05.05.539640). bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.05.539640

Shownotes

• Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.

• Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8 

• Strand, J. F. (2023). Error tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes. Psychological Methods, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000547

• Duygu Uygun-Tunç: Trust and criticism in science, Part I: Critical rationalism instead of organized skepticism: https://uyguntunc.wordpress.com/2020/10/30/trust-and-criticism-in-science-part-i-critical-rationalism-instead-of-organized-skepticism/

• Vazire, S. (2017). Quality Uncertainty Erodes Trust in Science. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74

• Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480(7375), Article 7375. https://doi.org/10.1038/480007a

• Fricker, E. (2002). Trusting others in the sciences: A priori or empirical warrant? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 33(2), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(02)00006-7

• Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.

Shownotes

• Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://rr.peercommunityin.org/

• Suggestion to Darwin to publish a book about pigeons instead of The Origins of Species: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2457A.xml

• Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070

• Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329.

Shownotes

• Statistics textbook by Philip Stark.

• Stark, P. B. (2022). Pay No attention to the model behind the curtain. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 179(11), 4121–4145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-022-03137-2 

• Burgess, E. W. (1927). Statistics and case studies as methods of sociological research, Vol 12(3), 103-120. (Thanks to Andy Grieve!)

• Nick Brown's role in pointing out flaws in the positivity ratio.

• Retraction notice of the positivity ratio paper.

• Blog by Tania Lombrozo on nonsensical formulas in abstracts.

• Kimball, A. W. (1957). Errors of the third kind in statistical consulting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 52(278), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1957.10501374

• Type III errors: Philip Stark’s post of Deborah Mayo’s blog

• Brower, D. (1949). The problem of quantification in psychological science. Psychological Review, 56(6), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061802

• Guttman scales

• Wilson, M. (2023). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Taylor & Francis.

• Wilson, M., Bathia, S., Morell, L., Gochyyev, P., Koo, B. W., & Smith, R. (2022). Seeking a better balance between efficiency and interpretability: Comparing the likert response format with the Guttman response format. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000462

• Bhatti, H.A., Mehta, S., McNeil, R., Wilson, M. (2023). A scientific approach to assessment: Rasch measurement and the four building blocks. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Advances in Applications of Rash Measurement in Science Education. Springer Nature. 

• Maslow, A. H. (1946). Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science. Philosophy of Science, 13(4), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1086/286907

Shownotes

• Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). The control of the content of conversation through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-25 

• Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1086/288135  

• Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423

• Susan Blackmore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore 

Shownotes: 

• Ego and Math (3Blue1Brown)

• M. V. Berry; Regular and irregular motion. AIP Conf. Proc. 15 September 1978; 46 (1): 16–120. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.31417

Shownotes

• Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424

• Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

• Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034436

• Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462586

• Greenwald, A. G. (Ed.). (1976). An editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078635

• Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

• Ledgerwood, A., & Sherman, J. W. (2012). Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 60–66.

• Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.

• Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023535

• Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes.

Shownotes: 

• Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524

• Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ Effect. PLOS ONE, 7(3), Article e33423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423

• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

• John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953

• Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable Research Practices Revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
  • NOTE: Daniel says in the podcast the paper below is by Fiedler and Strack - but it is by Fiedler and Schwarz.

• Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., Babincak, P., …

• Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687

• Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., & Xu, M. (2017). Replicating and fixing failed replications: The case of need for cognition and argument quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.006

• Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630

• Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small Telescopes Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341

Capax Mentis roughly translates to "capacity of mind."

Smriti stupidly messed up her audio so the quality isn't great. Apologies! 

Shownotes

• Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. Journal of Cell Science, 121(11), 1771. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.033340
• Bernal, J. D. (1939). The Social Function Of Science. Routledge.
• Paul Medawar: Advice to a Young Scientist 
• Feynman talking about the uncomfortable feeling of confusion  
• A good scientist always keeps learning – Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty 
• Flatland (1884) by Edwin Abbott Abbott 
• A zero-order correlation simply refers to the correlation between two variables (i.e., the independent and dependent variable) without controlling for the influence of any other variables. Essentially, this means that a zero-order correlation is the same thing as a Pearson correlation.

https://www.google.nl/books/edition/Advice_To_A_Young_Scientist/3fg3DgAAQBAJ

Shownotes

• Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39–41.
• Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21(4), 343.
  • Folderol means 'a useless ornament or accessory', and is used to indicate something is 'nonsense'. 
• Dweck, C. S. (2022). Mindsets: From bathtubs to hot beliefs to social change. In Kassin, S. (Ed.) Pillars of Social Psychology: Stories and Retrospectives, 213–219. Cambridge University Press. 
• The Kardashian Index

• Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39–41.

Correction: At 56:24, Smriti mentions the book This is Biology, which is written by Ernst Mayr, not E.O. Wilson. 

Shownotes

• Pavlov, I. (1936). Bequest of Pavlov to the Academic Youth of His Country. Science, 83(2155), 369–370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.83.2155.369
• Schwartz, B. (2022). Science, scholarship, and intellectual virtues: A guide to what higher education should be like. Journal of Moral Education, 51(1), 61-72.
• Robert T. Pennock: An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science
• Merton, R. K. (1942). A Note on Science and Democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.
• Schwartz, B. (1990). The creation and destruction of value. American Psychologist, 45(1), 7.
• Paul Medawar: Advice to a Young Scientist 
• Ernst Mayr. This is Biology
• Santiago Ramón y Cajal: Advice for a Young Investigator
• Bernal, J. D. (1939). The Social Function Of Science. Routledge. 
• Weber, M. (1917/1958). Science as a Vocation. Daedalus, 87(1), 111–134.
• E.O. Wilson: Letters to a Young Scientist

Schwartz, B. (2022). Science, scholarship, and intellectual virtues: A guide to what higher education should be like. Journal of Moral Education, 51(1), 61-72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1772211  (Published online: 19 Jun 2020)

You can read the paper here. 

An episode from Smriti's previous podcast with Paul Connor where they discussed the paper with Barry can be found here.  

Shownotes

• Bacon, New Atlantis, 1626: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2434/2434-h/2434-h.htm 
• Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25(1–2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-006-0005-2
• Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009). Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet, 374(9683), 86–89.
• Mao's Hundred Flowers Campaign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign 
• Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Research waste is still a scandal—An essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ, 363, k4645. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4645
• AltmanDG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283-4. 10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283 8124111
• Bernal, J. D. (1939). The Social Function Of Science. Routledge. http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188098
• Duckworth, A. L., & Milkman, K. L. (2022). A guide to megastudies. PNAS Nexus, 1(5), pgac214. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac214
• Almaatouq, A., Griffiths, T. L., Suchow, J., Whiting, M. E., Evans, J., & Watts, D. J. (2022). Beyond Playing 20 Questions with Nature: Integrative Experiment Design in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/anjkm

• You can read The Social Function of Science by Bernal at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188098

• Wilson, E. B. (1923). The Statistical Significance of Experimental Data. Science, 58(1493), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.58.1493.93

• van Dongen, N. N. N., & van Grootel, L. (2021). Overview on the Null Hypothesis Significance Test. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hwk4n

• Stark, P. B., & Saltelli, A. (2018). Cargo‐cult statistics and scientific crisis. Significance, 15(4), 40-43.

• Uygun Tunç, D., Tunç, M. N., & Lakens, D. (2023). The epistemic and pragmatic function of dichotomous claims based on statistical hypothesis tests. Theory & Psychology, 09593543231160112. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543231160112

• Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412

• Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304

• Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997

• Cohen, J. (1995). The earth is round ( p ]]> Shownotes
  • Wilson, E. B. (1923). The Statistical Significance of Experimental Data. Science, 58(1493), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.58.1493.93
  • van Dongen, N. N. N., & van Grootel, L. (2021). Overview on the Null Hypothesis Significance Test. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hwk4n
  • Stark, P. B., & Saltelli, A. (2018). Cargo‐cult statistics and scientific crisis. Significance, 15(4), 40-43.
  • Uygun Tunç, D., Tunç, M. N., & Lakens, D. (2023). The epistemic and pragmatic function of dichotomous claims based on statistical hypothesis tests. Theory & Psychology, 09593543231160112. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543231160112
  • Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412
  • Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304
  • Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
  • Cohen, J. (1995). The earth is round ( p ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 4986 1 10 full Episode 9: Praeiudicium Publicandi https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/praeiudicium-publicandi/ https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/praeiudicium-publicandi/#comments Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:00:00 +0200 nulliusinverba.podbean.com/de51a779-6f9e-3824-9333-124b7a0e71d4 In this episode, we discuss the issue of publication bias. We discuss issues like: Do we learn anything from null results, given the current state of research practices? Is poorly done research still worth sharing with the scientific community? And how can we move toward a system where null results are informative and worth publishing?

     

    Shownotes

    • Bones, A. K. (2012). We Knew the Future All Along Scientific Hypothesizing is Much More Accurate Than Other Forms of Precognition—A Satire in One Part. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612441216
    • Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823
    • Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157
    • Fidler, F., Singleton Thorn, F., Barnett, A., Kambouris, S., & Kruger, A. (2018). The epistemic importance of establishing the absence of an effect. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 237-244.
    • Pickett, J. T., & Roche, S. P. (2017). Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2
    • Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007468. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
    • Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—Or Vice Versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285), 30–34. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2282137
    • The FDA Trial tracker to see which trials have not shared their results: https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net/ 

     

    ]]> In this episode, we discuss the issue of publication bias. We discuss issues like: Do we learn anything from null results, given the current state of research practices? Is poorly done research still worth sharing with the scientific community? And how can we move toward a system where null results are informative and worth publishing?

     

    Shownotes

    • Bones, A. K. (2012). We Knew the Future All Along Scientific Hypothesizing is Much More Accurate Than Other Forms of Precognition—A Satire in One Part. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612441216
    • Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823
    • Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157
    • Fidler, F., Singleton Thorn, F., Barnett, A., Kambouris, S., & Kruger, A. (2018). The epistemic importance of establishing the absence of an effect. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 237-244.
    • Pickett, J. T., & Roche, S. P. (2017). Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2
    • Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007468. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
    • Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—Or Vice Versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285), 30–34. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2282137
    • The FDA Trial tracker to see which trials have not shared their results: https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net/ 

     

    ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 4022 1 9 full Episode 8: Scientia Cultus Sarcinarum https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/scientia-cultus-sarcinarum/ https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/scientia-cultus-sarcinarum/#comments Fri, 19 May 2023 18:00:00 +0200 nulliusinverba.podbean.com/7046c7a1-14a7-3f25-9bcf-de7ca0c423ed In this episode, we discuss physicist Richard Feynman’s famous speech ‘Cargo Cult Science,’ which refers to work that has all the affectations of science without the actual application of the scientific method. We also discuss topics like: What is pathological science? How might cargo cult science and pathological be different from pseudo-science? How do we know whether or not we’re in a cargo cult, and what can we do to make sure we're not fooling ourselves?

     

    Shownotes

    • Cargo Cult Science (Feynman, 1974)
    • Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of personality and social psychology, 26(2), 309–320.
    • Langmuir, I. (1989). Pathological science. Research-Technology Management, 32(5), 11-17.
    • Sabine Hossenfelder. No one in physics dare say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless. The Guardian.
    • Young, P. T. (1932). Relative food preferences of the white rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 14(3), 297.
    • Young, P. T. (1941). The experimental analysis of appetite. Psychological Bulletin, 38(3), 129.

     

    ]]> In this episode, we discuss physicist Richard Feynman’s famous speech ‘Cargo Cult Science,’ which refers to work that has all the affectations of science without the actual application of the scientific method. We also discuss topics like: What is pathological science? How might cargo cult science and pathological be different from pseudo-science? How do we know whether or not we’re in a cargo cult, and what can we do to make sure we're not fooling ourselves?

     

    Shownotes

    • Cargo Cult Science (Feynman, 1974)
    • Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of personality and social psychology, 26(2), 309–320.
    • Langmuir, I. (1989). Pathological science. Research-Technology Management, 32(5), 11-17.
    • Sabine Hossenfelder. No one in physics dare say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless. The Guardian.
    • Young, P. T. (1932). Relative food preferences of the white rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 14(3), 297.
    • Young, P. T. (1941). The experimental analysis of appetite. Psychological Bulletin, 38(3), 129.

     

    ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 3785 1 8 full Prologus 8: Cargo Cult Science (R.P. Feynman) https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/cargo-cult-science/ https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/cargo-cult-science/#comments Fri, 12 May 2023 09:00:00 +0200 nulliusinverba.podbean.com/8077cd80-a23f-368e-bff7-e1653798f068 In this bonus episode, we present a reading of the famous speech by physicist Richard Feynman on "science that isn't science," Cargo Cult Science, which will be the topic of the next episode. Enjoy. 
    ]]> In this bonus episode, we present a reading of the famous speech by physicist Richard Feynman on "science that isn't science," Cargo Cult Science, which will be the topic of the next episode. Enjoy. 
    ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 1354 1 8 bonus Episode 7: Corpora Regulatoria https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/corpora-regulatoria/ https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/corpora-regulatoria/#comments Fri, 05 May 2023 18:00:00 +0200 nulliusinverba.podbean.com/d7e8e657-7010-3862-832b-c813fbe73556 In this episode we discuss regulatory bodies their influence on the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Should regulatory bodies have the authority to affect the topics and methods of science? Is more highly regulated research actually better? And should we just give up on our own lines of research and become potato researchers? 

     

    Shownotes

    • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
    • Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Central Potato Research Institute (CPRI)
    • Emergence of the NIH 
    • DARPA SCORE
    • Lakens, D. (2023). Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards. Nature, 613(7942), 9-9.
    • PSA: Legate, N., Ngyuen, T. V., Weinstein, N., Moller, A., Legault, L., Vally, Z., ... & Ogbonnaya, C. E. (2022). A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(22).

     

    ]]> In this episode we discuss regulatory bodies their influence on the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Should regulatory bodies have the authority to affect the topics and methods of science? Is more highly regulated research actually better? And should we just give up on our own lines of research and become potato researchers? 

     

    Shownotes

    • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
    • Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Central Potato Research Institute (CPRI)
    • Emergence of the NIH 
    • DARPA SCORE
    • Lakens, D. (2023). Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards. Nature, 613(7942), 9-9.
    • PSA: Legate, N., Ngyuen, T. V., Weinstein, N., Moller, A., Legault, L., Vally, Z., ... & Ogbonnaya, C. E. (2022). A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(22).

     

    ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 3504 1 7 full Episode 6: Consentio https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/consentio/ https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/consentio/#comments Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:00:00 +0200 nulliusinverba.podbean.com/01e690ca-00ab-36b1-bf13-4e9b6cff4668 In this episode, we discuss the importance of consensus in science, both as means of establishing true knowledge and for determining which research questions might be worth pursuing. We also discuss barriers to reaching consensus and the different frameworks that are currently employed for trying to reach consensus among important stakeholders. 

    Shownotes

    • The Popper quote is from: Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
    • The Polanyi quote is from: Polanyi, M. (1950). Freedom in Science. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 6(7), 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1950.11461263
    • Planck's Principle: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    • The Many Smiles collaboration: Coles, N. A., et al., (2020). The Many Smiles collaboration: A multi-Lab foundational test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cvpuw
    • Paul Meehl's 50 year rule: Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–339.
    • Mulkay, M. (1978). Consensus in science. Social Science Information, 17(1), 107-122.
    • Deliberative Polling
    • Laudan, L. (1986). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Univ of California Press.

     

    ]]> In this episode, we discuss the importance of consensus in science, both as means of establishing true knowledge and for determining which research questions might be worth pursuing. We also discuss barriers to reaching consensus and the different frameworks that are currently employed for trying to reach consensus among important stakeholders. 

    
    
    Shownotes

    • The Popper quote is from: Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
    • The Polanyi quote is from: Polanyi, M. (1950). Freedom in Science. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 6(7), 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1950.11461263
    • Planck's Principle: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    • The Many Smiles collaboration: Coles, N. A., et al., (2020). The Many Smiles collaboration: A multi-Lab foundational test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cvpuw
    • Paul Meehl's 50 year rule: Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–339.
    • Mulkay, M. (1978). Consensus in science. Social Science Information, 17(1), 107-122.
    • Deliberative Polling
    • Laudan, L. (1986). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Univ of California Press.

     

    ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 3139 1 6 full Episode 5: Insanabile Scribendi Cacoethes https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/insanabile-scribendi-cacoethes/ https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/insanabile-scribendi-cacoethes/#comments Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:00:00 +0200 nulliusinverba.podbean.com/31441a3c-1e17-37a3-9b81-a86ba30b286a In this episode, we discuss the insatiable itch to publish, starting with a quote from 1927 by sociologist Clarence Case on the dictum “Publish or perish.” We discuss ways in which individual goals to publish conflict with the broader scientific goal of producing useful knowledge. We also question the assumptions behind the notion that publishing less would be beneficial for science.

     

    Shownotes

    • Case, C. M. (1927). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 323-340 (Publish or perish)
    • Phaf, R. H. (2020). Publish less, read more. Theory & Psychology, 30(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319898250
    • The term "insanabile scribendi cacoethes" comes from: Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.

     

    ]]> In this episode, we discuss the insatiable itch to publish, starting with a quote from 1927 by sociologist Clarence Case on the dictum “Publish or perish.” We discuss ways in which individual goals to publish conflict with the broader scientific goal of producing useful knowledge. We also question the assumptions behind the notion that publishing less would be beneficial for science.

     

    Shownotes

    • Case, C. M. (1927). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 323-340 (Publish or perish)
      
      
    • Phaf, R. H. (2020). Publish less, read more. Theory & Psychology, 30(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319898250
    • The term "insanabile scribendi cacoethes" comes from: Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.

     

    ]]> Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens false No 3759 1 5 full