Nullius in Verba

Latest Episodes:

Prologus 49: We Have to Break Up (R. B. Cialdini) Dec 06, 2024

Show notes

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

Episode 48: Defectum Nov 29, 2024

Show notes

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.

Episode 47: Inductio et Deductio Nov 15, 2024

Show notes

In this episode, we delve into induction and deduction and talk further about issues related to generalizability.

Shownotes

Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (1953). Hutchinson & Co. (Originally published in 1935)
Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e1.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American psychologist, 38(4), 379-387.
Salmon, W. C. (1981). Rational Prediction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/32.2.115
Reichenbach, H. (1938) [2006], Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Senn, S. (2007). Statistical issues in drug development (2nd ed). John Wiley & Sons.
Ernst, M. D. (2004). Permutation Methods: A Basis for Exact Inference. Statistical Science, 19(4), 676–685.
Bacon, F. (1620). Instauratio magna [Novum organum]. London: John Bill.
Urbach, P. (1982). Francis Bacon as a Precursor to Popper. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33(2), 113–132.

Episode 46: Invaliditas Externa Nov 01, 2024

Show notes

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)

Prologus 46: In Defense of External Invalidity (D. G. Mook) Oct 25, 2024

Show notes

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

Episode 45: Apprenticiatus Oct 18, 2024

Show notes

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.

Episode 44: Reprehensio Scientiae Aperta Oct 04, 2024

Show notes

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.

Episode 43: Historia Casus Methodi Scientifica Sep 20, 2024

Show notes

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

Prologus 43: A Case Study in Scientific Method (Skinner) Sep 13, 2024

Show notes

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.

Episode 42: Aestimatio Scriptorum Sep 06, 2024

Show notes

In today’s episode, we discuss critically reading and appraising scientific articles. How do we select which articles to read carefully? Which heuristics are useful for assessing paper quality? And do open science practices actually lead to better quality papers? Enjoy.

Shownotes

Bacon, F. (1625). Of Studies.
PNAS Submissions contributed by NAS members "The contributing member submits the manuscript to PNAS along with the names of at least two experts in the field of the paper who have agreed to review the work and brief comments about why each of those reviewers was chosen." https://www.pnas.org/pb-assets/authors/ifora-1720190309383.pdf
How many p-values just below 0.05 should we expect across multiple tests? https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-probability-of-p-values-as-function.html
Lakens, D. (2024). When and How to Deviate From a Preregistration. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), 117094. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.117094
TIER protocol: https://www.projecttier.org/tier-protocol/protocol-4-0/
Gino fraud investigation and excel meta-data: https://datacolada.org/109
REAPPRAISED checklist: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03959-6
Yang, Z., & Hung, I. W. (2021). Creative thinking facilitates perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 278.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected