Nullius in Verba

Prologus 19: Problem-Centering vs. Mean-Centering in Science (A. H. Maslow)

In preparation for a discussion on Quantifauxcation, a reading of 'Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science' by Abraham H. Maslow (1946). 
Maslow, A. H. (1946). Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science. Philosophy of Science, 13(4), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1086/286907

Episode 18: Vitia Vocationalis

In today’s episode, we discuss intellectual vices. How can we tell the difference between justified confidence and unjustified arrogance? How do we deal with feelings of envy or negative comparison with other scientists? What is the difference between building one’s career and careerism? And what do we do about scientists who do not care about the truth? 
 
Shownotes
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. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-25 
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1086/288135  
Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423
Susan Blackmore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore 

Episode 17: Snobismus

In this episode, we discuss scientific snobbery and the ways in which it affects our interactions with and perceptions of other scientists. What are the reasons for hierarchies among different disciplines, institutions, and approaches to science? What are some ways in which snobbery manifests in science? And is it snobby to not want to present scientific posters? Enjoy. 
 
Shownotes: 
Ego and Math (3Blue1Brown)
M. V. Berry; Regular and irregular motion. AIP Conf. Proc. 15 September 1978; 46 (1): 16–120. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.31417
 

Episode 16: Vetus Crisi Replicatio

In this episode, we continue our conversation on the replication crisis⏤Which methodological, theoretical, and practical concerns did psychologists raise half a century ago? What has changed, and what remains the same, during the current crisis? 
 
Shownotes
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034436
Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462586
Greenwald, A. G. (Ed.). (1976). An editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078635
Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Ledgerwood, A., & Sherman, J. W. (2012). Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 60–66.
Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.
Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023535
Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes.
 

Prologus 16: Investigator Data Analysis Effect (T. X. Barber)

Reading of the chapter "Investigator Data Analysis Effect" from the book:
Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.

Episode 15: Novum Crisi Replicati

In this episode, we discuss the replication crisis in psychology which has been an important topic of discussion for the last decade. We revisit some key events from the start of the replication crisis, such as the publication of Daryl Bem's studies on precognition, the paper False Positive Psychology, and the Reproducibility Project and share personal anecdotes about how it was to live through the replication crisis.
 
Shownotes: 
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ Effect. PLOS ONE, 7(3), Article e33423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable Research Practices Revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
NOTE: Daniel says in the podcast the paper below is by Fiedler and Strack - but it is by Fiedler and Schwarz.
Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., Babincak, P., …
Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687
Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., & Xu, M. (2017). Replicating and fixing failed replications: The case of need for cognition and argument quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.006
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small Telescopes Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341
 

Episode 14: Capax Mentis

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.

Prologus 14: How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker? (P. B. Medawar)

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

Episode 13: Chmess

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
 
 

Prologus 13: Chmess (D. C. Dennett)

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.