Afleveringen
-
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
-
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.
-
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
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
-
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 MagnetismThe Telepathy TapesFrankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit.Moberger, V. (2020). Bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86(5), 595–611.Ghostbusters (1984) - Venkman's ESP Test Scene -
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/id1584797552This 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.xDouglas, 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/10.1177/0963721417718261Tage-gate episode of More of a Comment than a Question: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/5511751-tage-gate -
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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.110.2.203Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831Maxwell, 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.n6Vincent, 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/10.4135/9781526430212Danermark, 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 -
You can listen to the podcast More of a Comment Than a Question here: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/
Our joint episode is a response to the episode ‘Final Final Final Comments’: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/16055645-final-final-final-comments
-
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 -
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/32.2.115Reichenbach, 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. - Laat meer zien
