Nullius in Verba

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

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 CodeThe Declaration of HelsinkiThree Identical StrangersThe ethical implications of the "Monster Study"'Little Albert' regains his identityIs it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives?

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 https://archive.org/details/englishmenofscie00galtuofthttp://archive.org/details/histoiredesscie00cand

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

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. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 2–14. Brower, D. (1949). The problem of quantification in psychological science. Psychological Review, 56(6), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061802 Danziger, K. (1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the social sciences, 15(1), 1-13.

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 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

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.Some Coffee and Sandwiches?

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). 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

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 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.

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

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 Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate Animal MagnetismThe Telepathy TapesOn bullshitGhostbusters (1984) - Venkman's ESP Test Scene

Conspiracy Stories Show Notes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film_series)https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/drang-naar-samenhang/id1584797552https://www.everythingisaremix.info/tinacthttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2000.tb03527.xhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/5511751-tage-gate

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 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

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 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