
Nullius in Verba
Nullius in Verba is a podcast about science—what it is and what it could be. It is hosted by Smriti Mehta from UC Berkeley and Daniël Lakens from Eindhoven University of Technology.
We draw inspiration from the book Novum Organum, written in 1620 by Francis Bacon, which laid the foundations of the modern scientific method. Our logo is an homage to the title page of Novum Organum, which depicts a galleon passing between the mythical Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar, which have been smashed by Iberian sailors to open a new world for exploration. Just as this marks the exit from the well-charted waters of the Mediterranean into the Atlantic Ocean, Bacon hoped that empirical investigation will similarly smash the old scientific ideas and lead to a greater understanding of the natural world.
The title of the podcast comes from the motto of the Royal Society, set in typeface Kepler by Robert Slimbach. Our theme song is Newton’s Cradle by Grandbrothers.
Latest episodes

Jul 4, 2025 • 1h 8min
Episode 62: Experimenta Exploratoria
Dive into the fascinating world of exploratory experimentation, where scientists venture into the unknown without rigid hypotheses. Discover why this innovative approach is often undervalued in the research community, contrary to its potential for groundbreaking findings. The importance of transparent documentation in building credibility is highlighted, along with the challenges young researchers face amidst academic pressures. Plus, explore the unique crossroads of psychology, AI, and sports science that redefine how we understand exploratory research.

Jun 20, 2025 • 1h 15min
Episode 61: Septem Vacae Sacrae III
This is the final installment of the three-part series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.

Jun 6, 2025 • 39min
Episode 60: Septem Vacae Sacrae II
Dive into the debate on classroom size and its effects on education quality, questioning if smaller classes really yield better results. Explore the gap between student expectations and faculty interactions, particularly in different classroom settings. The conversation critiques the pressures of academic publishing, emphasizing quality over quantity, and challenges traditional views on scientific contributions. Finally, it addresses the urgent need to rethink publication practices in academia, urging a shift from personal gain to meaningful scholarship.

May 23, 2025 • 1h 9min
Episode 59: Septem Vacae Sacrae I
Dive into the complexities of higher education as the hosts dissect Paul Meehl's unpublished insights on transforming academia. They tackle pressing budget cuts, questioning long-standing beliefs and advocating for a deeper integration of teaching and research. Explore the dynamics of vocational education, contrasting cultural perceptions of student preparedness, and the shift from traditional lectures to engaging online formats. This engaging discussion challenges the norms while envisioning a more effective and inclusive educational landscape.

May 10, 2025 • 57min
Episode 58: Communicatio Scientiae
In this episode, we discuss science communication. What is the purpose of science communication? Who does or should engage in it? Are there negative consequences of communicating science to the public? And what should we discuss over coffee and sandwiches?
Shownotes
Joubert, M. (2019). Beyond the Sagan effect. Nature Astronomy, 3(2), 131-132.
Martinez-Conde, S. (2016). Has contemporary academia 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.

21 snips
Apr 25, 2025 • 1h 14min
Episode 57: Censura
Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives Conference: https://dornsife.usc.edu/cesr/censorship-in-the-sciences-interdisciplinary-perspectives/
How Woke Warriors Destroyed Anthropology - Elizabeth Weiss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpWN_CsuiRc&t=392s
Clark, C. J., Jussim, L., Frey, K., Stevens, S. T., Al-Gharbi, M., Aquino, K., ... & von Hippel, W. (2023). 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

Apr 4, 2025 • 1h 9min
Episode 56: Cur Plerumque Investigatio Publica Falsa Est
The hosts dissect the impactful research of Ioannidis, revealing the alarming prevalence of false findings in behavioral sciences. They address the crises of credibility and research biases, like p-hacking, that endanger scientific integrity. Listeners learn about the complexities of probability in medical research and the significance of replication. The discussion emphasizes the need for transparency and rigorous methods, shedding light on how flawed reporting can distort the truth in academic publishing.

Mar 28, 2025 • 20min
Prologus 56: Probability Pyramiding (A. Neher)
In preparation for our discussion of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis from 2005, we read a very similar paper published 40 years earlier:
Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713

Mar 21, 2025 • 1h 4min
Episode 55: Pseudoscientia
In this episode, we discuss what separates science from pseudoscience and touch upon the demarcation problem, the recent controversial podcast called the Telepathy Tapes, and the movie Ghostbusters. Enjoy.
Shownotes
McLean v. Arkansas
Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2019). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press.
Report of the 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

Mar 7, 2025 • 1h 4min
Episode 54: Fabulae Coniurationis
Conspiracy Stories Show Notes:
Zeitgeist documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film_series)
Podcast Drang naar Samenhang: https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/drang-naar-samenhang/id1584797552
This is not a conspiracy theory documentary. https://www.everythingisaremix.info/tinact
Parker, M. (2000). Human Science as Conspiracy Theory. The Sociological Review, 48(2_suppl), 191-207. 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