Nullius in Verba

You can listen to the podcast More of a Comment Than a Question here: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/ Our joint episode is a response to the episode ‘Final Final Final Comments’: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/16055645-final-final-final-comments

In preparation for our next episode, a joint recording with our friends from More of a Comment than a Question, we read a paper by Robert Cialdini about the value of social psychology for the general public.  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

How I Fail. Blog by Veronika Cheplygina https://veronikach.com/category/how-i-fail/ 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. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2019). My Biggest Research Mistake: Adventures and Misadventures in Psychological Research (1st edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Explore the fascinating world of induction and deduction in scientific inquiry. Discover how philosophical perspectives shape our understanding of these methods. Delve into the complexities of generalizing findings and the pitfalls of statistical inference. Learn about the critical role of conscientiousness in psychological theories and the importance of precise variable definitions. Navigate the intricacies of aligning statistical models with hypotheses and the historical figures like Bacon and Popper who shaped these reasoning processes. It's a compelling dialogue on the essence of scientific methodology!

In this episode, we discuss the paper "In defense of external invalidity" by Douglas Mook.    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)  

A reading of the paper In Defense of External Invalidty by Douglas G. Mook, which will be discussed in the next episode.  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

In this episode, we discuss the role of apprenticeship in training scientists and researchers. What’s the difference between traditional apprenticeship and cognitive apprenticeship? Does graduate training live up to its promise as an apprenticeship model? What can we do to improve the modeling of skills that are to be taught during graduate training?    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.    

This is a live episode, recorded in Växjö, Sweden (Linnaeus university) on September 24, 2024, at the 5th meeting of the Open Science Community Sweden and the Swedish Reproducibility Network. Thanks to André Kalmendal at Mono (https://monovaxjo.se) for recording the episode. 

In this episode, we discuss the paper "A case history in scientific method" by B. F. Skinner   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  

In preparation for the next episode, in which we discuss this paper, here is a reading of:  Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221-233.