Nullius in Verba

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.

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.
 

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.

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.
 

In this episode, we talk about academic societies, professional organizations, and academic advocacy groups, focusing primarily on the discipline of psychology. What are their roles and responsibilities? Is it necessary for researchers to join such organizations? And should we bring back scholarly soirees? Enjoy. 
 
Shownotes
The Royal Society
Royal Society Referee Reports
Psychological Science
APA Divisions
Consistori del Gay Saber
ReproducibiliTea
The Royal Society Soirées