In the first part of this two-part episode, we explore the foundations of metascience—what it is, how it relates to and differs from the history and philosophy of science, and why understanding its philosophical roots matters. We also discuss the “four pillars” of the field and whether formal experience is necessary to contribute meaningfully to metascientific work.

Shownotes

Bunge, M. (1959). Why metascience? Metascientific Queries (pp. 3-27). Charles C Thomas. 

In this episode we discuss whether psychology is engaging in premature experimentation. Are experiments overused, and should we make greater use of other approaches to knowledge generation? If so, which methods should we use instead? And what can we learn from the way Martians would fund research on soccer? Enjoy.

In this episode we discuss exploratory experimentation, an iterative process used by scientists to better understand phenomena. We ask why exploratory research seems to be valued less in science, the importance of lab notebooks, and what makes for a good exploratory study.

References:

Steinle, F. (2016). Exploratory experiments: Ampère, Faraday, and the origins of electrodynamics. University of Pittsburgh press.

Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221–233.

Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.

Ditroilo, M., Mesquida ,Cristian, Abt ,Grant, & and Lakens, D. (2025). Exploratory research in sport and exercise science: Perceptions, challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 43(12), 1108–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2486871

Paul Meehl's Philosophical Psychology Lectures: https://meehl.umn.edu/video

Höfler, M., Scherbaum, S., Kanske, P., McDonald, B., & Miller, R. (2022). Means to valuable exploration: I. The blending of confirmation and exploration and how to resolve it. Meta-Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2837

This is the final installment of the three-part series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.

This is the second part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.

This is the first part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia. 

In this episode, we discuss science communication. What is the purpose of science communication? Who does or should engage in it? Are there negative consequences of communicating science to the public? And what should we discuss over coffee and sandwiches?

Shownotes

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 

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.