Nullius in Verba

Nullius in Verba

By Smriti Mehta and Daniël LakensScience
Download on the App Store

Nullius in Verba episodes

  • Episode 58: Communicatio Scientiae

    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

    • Joubert, M. (2019). Beyond the Sagan effect. Nature Astronomy, 3(2), 131-132.
    • Martinez-Conde, S. (2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect?. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077-2082.
    • Turner, J. (1962). Some Coffee and Sandwiches? Science, 136, 231-231. 
    • Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14062-14068.
    • Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
    • Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 14033-14039.
    •  

      58 min
    • Episode 57: Censura

      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

      1 hr 15 min
    • Episode 56: Cur Plerumque Investigatio Publica Falsa Est

      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.

       

      1 hr 9 min
    • Prologus 56: Probability Pyramiding (A. Neher)

      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

      20 min
    • Episode 55: Pseudoscientia

      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 Magnetism
      • The Telepathy Tapes
      • Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit.
      • Moberger, V. (2020). Bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86(5), 595–611.
      • Ghostbusters (1984) - Venkman's ESP Test Scene
      •  
      • 1 hr 5 min
      • Episode 54: Fabulae Coniurationis

        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/id1584797552
        • This 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.x
        • Douglas, 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/10.1177/0963721417718261
        • Tage-gate episode of More of a Comment than a Question:  https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/5511751-tage-gate 
        • 1 hr 5 min
        • Episode 53: Fraus - II

          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

          52 min
        • Episode 52: Fraus - I

          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

          1 hr 6 min
        • Episode 51: Quinquagesimus - II

          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! 

           

          53 min
        • Episode 50: Quinquagesimus - I

          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.110.2.203
          • Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831
          • Maxwell, 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.n6
          • Vincent, 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/10.4135/9781526430212
          • Danermark, 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
            1 hr 5 min

          About Nullius in Verba

          From the publisher's feed

          Nullius in Verba is a podcast about science—what it is and what it could be. It is hosted by Smriti Mehta from UC Berkeley and Daniël Lakens from Eindhoven University of…

          More shows like Nullius in Verba

          This American Life by This American Life

          This American Life

          90,560 Listeners

          Radiolab by WNYC Studios

          Radiolab

          43,833 Listeners

          Freakonomics Radio by Freakonomics Radio + Stitcher

          Freakonomics Radio

          31,931 Listeners

          99% Invisible by Roman Mars

          99% Invisible

          26,171 Listeners

          Song Exploder by Hrishikesh Hirway

          Song Exploder

          5,984 Listeners

          More or Less by BBC Radio 4

          More or Less

          870 Listeners

          Very Bad Wizards by Tamler Sommers & David Pizarro

          Very Bad Wizards

          2,670 Listeners

          Friday Night Comedy from BBC Radio 4 by BBC Radio 4

          Friday Night Comedy from BBC Radio 4

          2,108 Listeners

          Everything Hertz by Dan Quintana

          Everything Hertz

          55 Listeners

          Two Psychologists Four Beers by Yoel Inbar, Michael Inzlicht, and Alexa Tullett

          Two Psychologists Four Beers

          157 Listeners

          Know Your Enemy by Matthew Sitman

          Know Your Enemy

          2,068 Listeners

          Quantitude by Greg Hancock & Patrick Curran

          Quantitude

          223 Listeners

          Decoding the Gurus by Christopher Kavanagh and Matthew Browne

          Decoding the Gurus

          946 Listeners

          The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

          The Ezra Klein Show

          16,044 Listeners

          What Now? with Trevor Noah by Trevor Noah

          What Now? with Trevor Noah

          4,226 Listeners