Nullius in Verba

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.  

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

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.

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  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  

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 

Dive into the murky waters of scientific fraud and the erosion of trust it brings to academia. Explore the balancing act between self-correction in science and the reality of misconduct. Learn about the profound implications of data integrity, illustrated through a darkly humorous anecdote. Discussions on the psychological pressures leading to cheating reveal broader ethical dilemmas. Finally, discover the shifting attitudes towards replication as a vital part of maintaining scientific integrity. Transparency and accountability emerge as essential themes in fostering ethical research practices.

Dive into the murky world of scientific fraud as hosts unpack infamous hoaxes and data manipulation. They explore Alan Sokol's satirical paper and its implications for academic integrity. Ethical dilemmas arise around practices like p-hacking, raising questions about trust in research. The Diederik Stapel fraud case highlights transparency issues and personal motivations in academia. Personal consequences of fraud are discussed, as are the heavy impacts on families. Accountability in the scientific community remains a pressing theme throughout.

In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to Don Moore, Leif Nelson, Henry Wyneken, Charlotte Pennington, and Karan Paranganat for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes!   

In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to James Steele, Peder Isager, and Simen Leithe Tajet for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes!    Shownotes Roger Scruton Quote  Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 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