Nullius in Verba

This podcast explores the replication crisis in psychology, discussing key events such as Daryl Bem's precognition studies and the False Positive Psychology paper. The hosts share personal anecdotes and discuss the concept of crisis, controversial papers, data analysis methods, unethical research practices, and the Reproducibility Project's impact.

In this episode we reflect on the role of intelligence in scientist. How much does intelligence matter in science, and which other characteristics might play a role in doing good science? Do scientist need to be extremely intelligent or can anyone do science? And what is the role of stupidity in science?  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.

As prologue to the next episode on how smart one needs to be to be a scientist, we present a reading of chapter 2 "How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker?" by Peter B. Medawar from his 1979 book 'Advice to a young scientist'. Our next episode was inspired by the section "Am I brainy enough to be a scientist?" https://www.google.nl/books/edition/Advice_To_A_Young_Scientist/3fg3DgAAQBAJ

In this episode we discuss Daniel Dennett's distinction between chess, or research worth doing, and 'chmess,'  research not worth doing. We discuss ways to determine whether our research is chess or chmess, and how to avoid being sucked into lines of research we don't particularly care about.    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    

As prologue to the next episode on Chmess, we present a reading of a paper by Daniel C. Dennett:  Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39–41.

In today's episode, we discuss vocational virtues⸺scientific principles that should guide the behavior of scientists. We discuss whether we agree with values put forth by numerous scientists, including Ivan Pavlov, Peter Medawar, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Barry Schwartz, among others, and share our own.    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

As prologue to the next episode on vocational virtues, we present a reading of a paper by Barry Schwartz:  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.    

In this episode, we discuss the topic of research waste. We discuss what it is it that is being wasted and whether we waste fewer scientific resources and talent through coordination, team science, and better planning.    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  

In this bonus episode, Daniël reads Chapter 5 of John Desmond Bernal’s book The Social Function of Science, entitled The Efficiency of Scientific Research in preparation of our upcoming podcast episode on research waste. You can read The Social Function of Science by Bernal at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188098

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