Video lectures: https://meehl.umn.edu/video Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1992). Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science: Some illustrations. Behavior Therapy, 23(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80381-8 Serlin, R. C., & Lapsley, D. K. (1985). Rationality in psychological research: The good-enough principle. American Psychologist, 40(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.1.73 Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1 Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–467.
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 Gholson, B., Jr, W. R. S. J., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (Eds.). (1989). Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience. Cambridge University Press. Bunge, M. (1959). Why metascience? Metascientific Queries (pp. 3-27). Charles C Thomas.
Bunge, M. (1959). Why metascience? Metascientific Queries (pp. 3-27). Charles C Thomas.
This is the final installment of the three-part series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.
This is the second part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.
This is the first part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.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 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.
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
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.110.2.203 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
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/32.2.115 Reichenbach, 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 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.
In this episode, we talk about academic societies, professional organizations, and academic advocacy groups, focusing primarily on the discipline of psychology. What are their roles and responsibilities? Is it necessary for researchers to join such organizations? And should we bring back scholarly soirees? Enjoy. Shownotes Royal Society Referee Reports Psychological Science APA Divisions Consistori del Gay Saber ReproducibiliTea The Royal Society Soirées
In this episode, we discuss review boards for research with human subjects. Are they necessary? Are they efficient? Are scientists well equipped to make judgements about ethics? And are economists more ethical than psychologists? Shownotes Whitney, S. N. (2015). Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members. Springer. Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. JHU Press. Kinsey ReportsMasters & Johnson How Institutional Review Boards can be (and are) Weaponized Against Academic Freedom Weaponizing the IRB 2.0 Psychologists’ Involvement in Torture and the APA. Psychology Today.
In this episode, we discuss activism in science. How do political and personal values affect science? When is activism just part of the job? And should one be careful about activism in the classroom? Enjoy. Shownotes: Frisby, C. L., Redding, R. E., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2023). Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: An Introduction. In Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (pp. 1-14). Cham: Springer International Publishing. McCaughey, M. (2023). The Trouble with Scholar-Activists. AAUP. McCaughey, M. (2024). Against Scholar Activists. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2023). Political bias in the social sciences: A critical, theoretical, and empirical review. Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions, 97-146. Sargent, R. M. (2012). From Bacon to Banks: The vision and the realities of pursuing science for the common good. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(1), 82-90. Weber, M. (1946). Science as a Vocation. In Science and the Quest for Reality (pp. 382-394). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.