Nullius in Verba

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

In this episode, we discuss the issue of publication bias. We discuss issues like: Do we learn anything from null results, given the current state of research practices? Is poorly done research still worth sharing with the scientific community? And how can we move toward a system where null results are informative and worth publishing?   Shownotes Bones, A. K. (2012). We Knew the Future All Along Scientific Hypothesizing is Much More Accurate Than Other Forms of Precognition—A Satire in One Part. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612441216 Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823 Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157 Fidler, F., Singleton Thorn, F., Barnett, A., Kambouris, S., & Kruger, A. (2018). The epistemic importance of establishing the absence of an effect. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 237-244. Pickett, J. T., & Roche, S. P. (2017). Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2 Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 25152459211007468. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467 Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—Or Vice Versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285), 30–34. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2282137 The FDA Trial tracker to see which trials have not shared their results: https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net/   

In this episode, we discuss physicist Richard Feynman’s famous speech ‘Cargo Cult Science,’ which refers to work that has all the affectations of science without the actual application of the scientific method. We also discuss topics like: What is pathological science? How might cargo cult science and pathological be different from pseudo-science? How do we know whether or not we’re in a cargo cult, and what can we do to make sure we're not fooling ourselves?   Shownotes Cargo Cult Science (Feynman, 1974) Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of personality and social psychology, 26(2), 309–320. Langmuir, I. (1989). Pathological science. Research-Technology Management, 32(5), 11-17. Sabine Hossenfelder. No one in physics dare say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless. The Guardian. Young, P. T. (1932). Relative food preferences of the white rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 14(3), 297. Young, P. T. (1941). The experimental analysis of appetite. Psychological Bulletin, 38(3), 129.  

In this bonus episode, we present a reading of the famous speech by physicist Richard Feynman on "science that isn't science," Cargo Cult Science, which will be the topic of the next episode. Enjoy. 

In this episode we discuss regulatory bodies their influence on the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Should regulatory bodies have the authority to affect the topics and methods of science? Is more highly regulated research actually better? And should we just give up on our own lines of research and become potato researchers?    Shownotes Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Central Potato Research Institute (CPRI) Emergence of the NIH  DARPA SCORE Lakens, D. (2023). Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards. Nature, 613(7942), 9-9. PSA: Legate, N., Ngyuen, T. V., Weinstein, N., Moller, A., Legault, L., Vally, Z., ... & Ogbonnaya, C. E. (2022). A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(22).