Nullius in Verba

Episode 26: Vocans Ictus Tuos - Pars I

In this two part episode we discuss the fine art of preregistration. We go back into the history of preregistration, its evolution, and current use. Do we preregister to control the Type 1 error rate, or to show that we derived our prediction from theory a priori? Can and should we preregister exploratory or secondary data analysis? And how severe is the issue of severe testing?
 
Shownotes
ClinicalTrials.gov
You can preregister on AsPredicted and the OSF
Johnson, M. (1975). Models of Control and Control of Bias. European Journal of Parapsychology, 36–44.
SPIRIT Checklist
Bishop, D. V. M. (2018). Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918776632
FDA trials tracker: https://fdaaa.trialstracker.net 
Ensinck, E., & Lakens, D. (2023). An Inception Cohort Study Quantifying How Many Registered Studies are Published. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5hkjz
van den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Enting, M., de Jonge, M., Ong, H. H., Rüffer, F., Schoenmakers, M., Stoevenbelt, A. H., Wicherts, J. M., & Bakker, M. (2023). Selective Hypothesis Reporting in Psychology: Comparing Preregistrations and Corresponding Publications. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 25152459231187988. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231187988
Claesen, A., Gomes, S., Tuerlinckx, F., & Vanpaemel, W. (2021). Comparing dream to reality: An assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies. Royal Society Open Science, 8(10), 211037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211037
Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Johnson, M. (1975). Models of Control and Control of Bias. European Journal of Parapsychology, 36–44.
de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology. Mouton & Co.
Claesen, A., Lakens, D., Vanpaemel, W., & Dongen, N. van. (2022). Severity and Crises in Science: Are We Getting It Right When We’re Right and Wrong When We’re Wrong? PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ekhc8
 

Episode 25: Reverentia Ad Auctoritatem

In the first episode of 2024, we discuss the double-edged sword: reverence to authority. Should scientists respect others on whose shoulders they stand? Or should they be wary of appeal to authority? How should scientists deal with other sources of authority in science, like for example, the government or academic societies? And how can we differentiate true expertise from mere authority?  Enjoy. 
 
Shownotes
Frank, P. (1956). The role of authority in the interpretation of science. Synthese, 10, 335–338.
Barber, B. (1952). Science and the social order. Glencoe, Ill. : Free Press. http://archive.org/details/sciencesocialord0000barb
Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery. Science, 134(3479), 596–602.
Kitcher, P. (1992). Authority, deference, and the role of individual reasoning in science. In E. Mcmullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73
The practice of two-spaces after the end of a sentence comes from when type-writers used monospaced typefaces: https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/two-spaces-after-a-period-why-you-should-never-ever-do-it.html 

Prologus 25: The Fixation of Belief (C. S. Peirce)

The Fixation of Belief. Charles S. Peirce. Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), 1-15.
http://peirce.org/writings/p107.html 

Episode 24: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars II

In this second installment of The Anticreativity Letters, we continue discussing the Tempter's tactics for stifling creativity and how to overcome them. 

Episode 23: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars I

In the first of a two-part episode, we discuss The Anticreativity Letters by Richard Nisbett, in which a senior "tempter" advises a junior tempter on ways to prevent a young psychologist from being a productive and creative scientist.
Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1078–1082.
BMJ Christmas issue: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types/christmas-issue
Quote by Ira Glass: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to-people-who-are-beginners-i-wish

Prologus 23: The Anticreativity Letters (R. E. Nisbett)

A reading of:
Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1078–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1078

Episode 22: Magisterium

In today’s episode, we discuss the role of mentorship in academia. What are the characteristics of a good mentor-mentee relationship? What are the qualities of good mentors and good mentees? Does mentorship play a role in the development of scientific knowledge? And could mentors and mentees benefit from couples therapy?
Note: D.I.H.C is pronounced 'dick' but this is meant to be a family-friendly podcast :)
 
Shownotes
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-fitness/201303/10-things-your-relationship-needs-thrive
Roberts, L. R., Tinari, C. M., & Bandlow, R. (2019). An effective doctoral student mentor wears many hats and asks many questions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 133.
Sarabipour, S., Niemi, N. M., Burgess, S. J., Smith, C. T., Filho, A. W. B., Ibrahim, A., & Clark, K. (2023). Insights from a survey of mentorship experiences by graduate and postdoctoral researchers (p. 2023.05.05.539640). bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.05.539640
 

Episode 21: Verifica Sed Confide

In this episode, we discuss the role of trust in science. Why should we verify but trust other scientists? What are the prerequisites for building trust within the scientific community? Who is ultimately responsible for verifying our claims and practices that bolster those claims? And should we give personality tests to everyone who enters academia?
 
Shownotes
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8 
Strand, J. F. (2023). Error tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes. Psychological Methods, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000547
Duygu Uygun-Tunç: Trust and criticism in science, Part I: Critical rationalism instead of organized skepticism: https://uyguntunc.wordpress.com/2020/10/30/trust-and-criticism-in-science-part-i-critical-rationalism-instead-of-organized-skepticism/
Vazire, S. (2017). Quality Uncertainty Erodes Trust in Science. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74
Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480(7375), Article 7375. https://doi.org/10.1038/480007a
Fricker, E. (2002). Trusting others in the sciences: A priori or empirical warrant? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 33(2), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(02)00006-7

Prologus 21: Role of Trust in Knowledge (J. Hardwig)

In advance of our episode Verify but Trust, a reading of John Hardwig's paper The Role of Trust in Science. 
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.

Episode 20: Recensio Aequalium

In today’s episode, we discuss the peer review process---its history, its present, and its future. How does peer review work? How long has it existed in its current form? Should reviews be open and signed? Should reviewers be paid for their hard labor? Should we just abandon the peer review process, or does it have a positive role to play? 
 
Shownotes
Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://rr.peercommunityin.org/
Suggestion to Darwin to publish a book about pigeons instead of The Origins of Species: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2457A.xml
Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070
Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329.