Nullius in Verba

Episode 58: Communicatio Scientiae

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.
 

Episode 57: Censura

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

Episode 56: Cur Plerumque Investigatio Publica Falsa Est

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
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
Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens, A. C. J. W. (2007). Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way. PLOS Medicine, 4(2), e28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028
Stroebe, W. (2016). Are most published social psychological findings false? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.017
Diekmann, A. (2011). Are Most Published Research Findings False? Jahrbücher Für Nationalökonomie Und Statistik, 231(5–6), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-606
Goodman, S., & Greenland, S. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Problems in the analysis. PLoS Medicine, 4(4), e168.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Author’s reply to Goodman and Greenland. PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e215.
 

Prologus 56: Probability Pyramiding (A. Neher)

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

Episode 55: Pseudoscientia

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
 

Episode 54: Fabulae Coniurationis

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 

Episode 53: Fraus - II

Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1983). Betrayers of the truth. New York : Simon and Schuster. http://archive.org/details/betrayersoftruth00broa
Wolfgang Stroebe, Tom Postmes, & Russell Spears. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687
 
Zotero can track if you are citing retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/06/12/want-to-check-for-retractions-in-your-personal-library-and-get-alerts-for-free-now-you-can/
 
100% CI blog: The Untold Mystery of Rogue RA https://www.the100.ci/2024/12/18/rogue-ra/
 
Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193
 
Senior RIKEN scientist involved in stem cell scandal commits suicide https://www.science.org/content/article/senior-riken-scientist-involved-stem-cell-scandal-commits-suicide
 
Kis, A., Tur, E. M., Lakens, D., Vaesen, K., & Houkes, W. (2022). Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0274976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274976

Episode 52: Fraus - I

Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes.
Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856
Grievance studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
It is legal to own and/or read Mein Kampf in The Netherlands (and Germany).
Hand, D. (2007). Deception and dishonesty with data: Fraud in science. Significance, 4(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00215.x
Gross, C. (2016). Scientific Misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(Volume 67, 2016), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437
Paolo Macchiarini: https://www.science.org/content/article/macchiarini-guilty-misconduct-whistleblowers-share-blame-new-karolinska-institute
The Truth about China’s Cash-for-Publication Policy: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/12/150506/the-truth-about-chinas-cash-for-publication-policy/
Claudine Gay plagiarism: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2024/01/22/harvard-releases-details-of-claudine-gay-investigation/
Many Co-Authors: https://manycoauthors.org/
Paper describing a replication study where students make up data: Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). The control of the content of conversation through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 25–30.
Francesca Gino defamation case dismissed: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/12/judge-dismisses-gino-lawsuit-defamation-charges/
Retractions in Social Influence of the work of Guéguen: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431408, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431415, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431421
 
Diederik Stapel’s book: http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf
 
Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193

Episode 51: Quinquagesimus - II

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! 
 

Episode 50: Quinquagesimus - I

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