Nullius in Verba

In this episode, we discuss the importance of consensus in science, both as means of establishing true knowledge and for determining which research questions might be worth pursuing. We also discuss barriers to reaching consensus and the different frameworks that are currently employed for trying to reach consensus among important stakeholders. Shownotes The Popper quote is from: Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge. The Polanyi quote is from: Polanyi, M. (1950). Freedom in Science. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 6(7), 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1950.11461263 Planck's Principle: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. The Many Smiles collaboration: Coles, N. A., et al., (2020). The Many Smiles collaboration: A multi-Lab foundational test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cvpuw Paul Meehl's 50 year rule: Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–339. Mulkay, M. (1978). Consensus in science. Social Science Information, 17(1), 107-122. Deliberative Polling Laudan, L. (1986). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Univ of California Press.

In this episode, we discuss the insatiable itch to publish, starting with a quote from 1927 by sociologist Clarence Case on the dictum “Publish or perish.” We discuss ways in which individual goals to publish conflict with the broader scientific goal of producing useful knowledge. We also question the assumptions behind the notion that publishing less would be beneficial for science. Shownotes Case, C. M. (1927). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 323-340 (Publish or perish) Phaf, R. H. (2020). Publish less, read more. Theory & Psychology, 30(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319898250 The term "insanabile scribendi cacoethes" comes from: Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.

In this episode, we discuss the role of eminence in science. What ask questions like: What makes scientists eminent? What role does eminence play in science? Can eminence be spread across scientific teams instead of individuals? And how can we recognize and applaud scientists for their contributions, while avoiding conferring too many benefits on scientists who do become eminent? Shownotes Eminent psychologists of the 20th century Intel - Our rock stars aren't like your rock stars

In our third episode, we discuss confirmation bias, which affects not only how scientists generate and test their own hypotheses, but also how they evaluate the scientific evidence presented by others. We discuss guardrails against confirmation bias that are already in place, and others that could potentially improve scientific practice if adopted. Shownotes Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129-140. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269-275. Coles, N. A., March, D. S., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Larsen, J. T., Arinze, N. C., Ndukaihe, I. L., ... & Liuzza, M. T. (2022). A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the many smiles collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-12. Dutilh, G., Sarafoglou, A., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2021). Flexible yet fair: Blinding analyses in experimental psychology. Synthese, 198(23), 5745-5772. Sarafoglou, A., Hoogeveen, S., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2023). Comparing analysis blinding with preregistration in the many-analysts religion project. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1), 25152459221128319. Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly

In our second episode, we discuss the role of skepticism in science, a topic that relates closely to the title of our podcast. Given that the scientific enterprise is essentially an exercise in organized skepticism, how can we maintain a healthy amount of skepticism while also ensuring that scientists don't slip into cynicism or nihilism? Shownotes Opening quote by Imre Lakatos from Science and Pseudoscience. Hear it from the man himself. Ego depletion Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Wacholder, S., Chanock, S., Garcia-Closas, M., El Ghormli, L., & Rothman, N. (2004). Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(6), 434-442. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh075 Quote by Debra Mayo. Original reference: Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical inference as severe testing: How to get beyond the statistics wars. Cambridge University Press.

In our first episode, we discuss a quote from the preface to The Instauratio Magna (of which Novum Organum is a part), in which Bacon claims that scientists should be motivated to do science for the betterment of mankind, and not for personal motives like fame, fortune, or even fun. Here is the tweet (by Heidi Seibold) on academia not being aligned with good scientific practices. An unedited transcript of the episode can be found here.