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 Technology. We draw inspiration from the book Novum Organum, written in 1620 by Francis Bacon, which laid the foundations of the modern scientific method. Our logo is an homage to the title page of Novum Organum, which depicts a galleon passing between the mythical Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Strait of Gibralta ...
…
continue reading
Insurance Answers is a pro-insurance podcast for social workers, counselors, and psychologists to answer all of your credentialing and billing questions. The information on this podcast is based on the opinions and experiences of Katia Callan, LCSW-C and Danielle Kepler, LCPC in relation to their respective private practices and being paneled with various insurance companies. They are providing information based on the credentialing process, communicating with various companies, and the bill ...
…
continue reading
Welcome to the Eye of AI, an Anyline podcast that dives deep into the world of mobile technology, innovation, and all things Artificial Intelligence. Join our host, Marc Babin, as he discusses the latest trends with influential tech leaders from around the world.
…
continue reading
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 The Royal Society Royal S…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 40: Tabula de Ethicis Recensionibus
1:13:28
1:13:28
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:13:28
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. Schra…
…
continue reading
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 Ideologi…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we continue our discussion of replications. We talk about how to analyze replication studies, which studies are worth replicating, and what is the status of replications in other scientific disciplines. Shownotes Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://…
…
continue reading
In the next two episodes, we will discuss replication studies, which are essential to building reliable scientific knowledge. Shownotes Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087978 Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psycho…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 37: Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research (N. C. Smith)
28:28
28:28
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
28:28
Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25(10), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss a fun mix of eponymous laws, which are laws named after individuals who postulate them. Shownotes Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas Theorem and the Matthews Effe…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 35: Praedictio Clinica Versus Statistica
1:08:16
1:08:16
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:08:16
In this final episode of the three-part series on the Philosophical Psychology lectures by Paul Meehl, we discuss lectures 6-8, which cover the ten obfuscating factors in "soft areas" of psychology and a host of advice Meehl provides for researchers, reviewers, editors, and educators on how to improve practice. Shownotes Krefeld-Schwalb, A., Sugerm…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 34: Aestimatio et Emendatio Theoriarum
1:14:07
1:14:07
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:14:07
In this episode, we continue the discussion of Meehl's Philosophy of Psychology course, focusing on lectures 3, 4, and 5. Shownotes The quote "Don't make a mockery of honest ad-hockery" is probably from Clark Glymour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Glymour Good, I. J. (1965). The Estimation of Probabilities: An Essay on Modern Bayesian Methods…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 34: Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science (Faust & Meehl)
1:02:07
1:02:07
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:02:07
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)80381-8By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 33: Risicae Theoreticae et Asterisci Tabulares
59:23
59:23
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
59:23
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 g…
…
continue reading
In advance of the next three episodes discussing the Philosophical Psychology lectures by Paul E. Meehl, we present a brief reading from his autobiography in A history of psychology in autobiography. Meehl, P. E. (1989). Paul E. Meehl. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 8, pp. 337–389). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss objectivity and disinterestedness in science. We talk about norms, values, interests, and objectivity in research practice, peer review, and hiring decisions. Is it possible to be completely objective? Is objectivity a feature of epistemic products or epistemic processes? And most importantly, how would you objectively r…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss the role of criticism in science. When is criticism constructive as opposed to obsessive? What are the features of fair and useful scientific criticism? And should we explicitly teach junior researchers to both give and accept criticism? Shownotes: Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we continue discussing Dubin’s 8-step method for theory building. We discuss the measurement of theoretical constructs, using logical propositions to make falsifiable predictions from theories, and the importance of specifying boundary conditions. Shownotes Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory Construction and Model-building Sk…
…
continue reading
In this episode we discussed the 8-step method of theory building proposed by Robin Dubin in his classic 1969 book Theory Building. Shownotes Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Free Press. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/160506.html Lynham, S. A. (2002). Quantitative Research and Theory Building: Dubin’s Method. Advances in Developin…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss the barriers to cumulative science, including inconsistent measurement tools, overreliance on single studies, and the large volume of research publications. Can replications, interdisciplinary collaborations, and prospective meta-analyses help us solve this issue? Can AI solve all our problems? And do most scientists tre…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 28: Chaos in the Brickyard (B. K. Forscher)
5:40
5:40
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
5:40
A reading of:Forscher, B. K. (1963). Chaos in the Brickyard. Science, 142(3590), 339–339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.142.3590.339By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In today’s episode, we continue our conversation about preregistration. How flexible can we be when we preregister, without increasing flexibility in our analysis? How well do people preregister, and what does a good preregistration look like? And how do we deal with deviations from preregistrations? Shownotes Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Fre…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 26: Vocans Ictus Tuos - Pars I
1:01:34
1:01:34
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:01:34
In this two part episode we discuss the fine art of preregistration. We go back into the history of preregistration, its evolution, and current use. Do we preregister to control the Type 1 error rate, or to show that we derived our prediction from theory a priori? Can and should we preregister exploratory or secondary data analysis? And how severe …
…
continue reading
In the first episode of 2024, we discuss the double-edged sword: reverence to authority. Should scientists respect others on whose shoulders they stand? Or should they be wary of appeal to authority? How should scientists deal with other sources of authority in science, like for example, the government or academic societies? And how can we differen…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 25: The Fixation of Belief (C. S. Peirce)
32:52
32:52
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
32:52
The Fixation of Belief. Charles S. Peirce. Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), 1-15. http://peirce.org/writings/p107.htmlBy Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 24: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars II
42:20
42:20
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
42:20
In this second installment of The Anticreativity Letters, we continue discussing the Tempter's tactics for stifling creativity and how to overcome them.By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 23: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars I
48:07
48:07
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
48:07
In the first of a two-part episode, we discuss The Anticreativity Letters by Richard Nisbett, in which a senior "tempter" advises a junior tempter on ways to prevent a young psychologist from being a productive and creative scientist. Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psych…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 23: The Anticreativity Letters (R. E. Nisbett)
35:55
35:55
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
35:55
A reading of: Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1078–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1078By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In today’s episode, we discuss the role of mentorship in academia. What are the characteristics of a good mentor-mentee relationship? What are the qualities of good mentors and good mentees? Does mentorship play a role in the development of scientific knowledge? And could mentors and mentees benefit from couples therapy? Note: D.I.H.C is pronounced…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss the role of trust in science. Why should we verify but trust other scientists? What are the prerequisites for building trust within the scientific community? Who is ultimately responsible for verifying our claims and practices that bolster those claims? And should we give personality tests to everyone who enters academia…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 21: Role of Trust in Knowledge (J. Hardwig)
46:57
46:57
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
46:57
In advance of our episode Verify but Trust, a reading of John Hardwig's paper The Role of Trust in Science. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In today’s episode, we discuss the peer review process---its history, its present, and its future. How does peer review work? How long has it existed in its current form? Should reviews be open and signed? Should reviewers be paid for their hard labor? Should we just abandon the peer review process, or does it have a positive role to play? Shownote…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss Quantifauxcation, described by statistician Philip Stark as “situations in which a number is, in effect, made up, and then is given credence merely because it is quantitative.” We give examples of quantifauxcation in psychology, including errors of the third kind. We spend the second half of the podcast discussing how to…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 19: Problem-Centering vs. Mean-Centering in Science (A. H. Maslow)
25:23
25:23
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
25:23
By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In today’s episode, we discuss intellectual vices. How can we tell the difference between justified confidence and unjustified arrogance? How do we deal with feelings of envy or negative comparison with other scientists? What is the difference between building one’s career and careerism? And what do we do about scientists who do not care about the …
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss scientific snobbery and the ways in which it affects our interactions with and perceptions of other scientists. What are the reasons for hierarchies among different disciplines, institutions, and approaches to science? What are some ways in which snobbery manifests in science? And is it snobby to not want to present scie…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we continue our conversation on the replication crisis⏤Which methodological, theoretical, and practical concerns did psychologists raise half a century ago? What has changed, and what remains the same, during the current crisis? Shownotes Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular …
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 16: Investigator Data Analysis Effect (T. X. Barber)
50:55
50:55
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
50:55
Reading of the chapter "Investigator Data Analysis Effect" from the book: Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss the replication crisis in psychology which has been an important topic of discussion for the last decade. We revisit some key events from the start of the replication crisis, such as the publication of Daryl Bem's studies on precognition, the paper False Positive Psychology, and the Reproducibility Project and share pers…
…
continue reading
In this episode we reflect on the role of intelligence in scientist. How much does intelligence matter in science, and which other characteristics might play a role in doing good science? Do scientist need to be extremely intelligent or can anyone do science? And what is the role of stupidity in science? Capax Mentis roughly translates to "capacity…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 14: How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker? (P. B. Medawar)
15:28
15:28
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
15:28
As prologue to the next episode on how smart one needs to be to be a scientist, we present a reading of chapter 2 "How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker?" by Peter B. Medawar from his 1979 book 'Advice to a young scientist'. Our next episode was inspired by the section "Am I brainy enough to be a scientist?" https://www.…
…
continue reading
In this episode we discuss Daniel Dennett's distinction between chess, or research worth doing, and 'chmess,' research not worth doing. We discuss ways to determine whether our research is chess or chmess, and how to avoid being sucked into lines of research we don't particularly care about. Shownotes Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths abou…
…
continue reading
As prologue to the next episode on Chmess, we present a reading of a paper by Daniel C. Dennett: Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39–41.By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In today's episode, we discuss vocational virtues⸺scientific principles that should guide the behavior of scientists. We discuss whether we agree with values put forth by numerous scientists, including Ivan Pavlov, Peter Medawar, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Barry Schwartz, among others, and share our own. Correction: At 56:24, Smriti mentions the book …
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 12: Science, Scholarship, and Intellectual Virtues (B.J. Schwartz)
34:17
34:17
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
34:17
As prologue to the next episode on vocational virtues, we present a reading of a paper by Barry Schwartz: Schwartz, B. (2022). Science, scholarship, and intellectual virtues: A guide to what higher education should be like. Journal of Moral Education, 51(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1772211 (Published online: 19 Jun 2020) You ca…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss the topic of research waste. We discuss what it is it that is being wasted and whether we waste fewer scientific resources and talent through coordination, team science, and better planning. Shownotes Bacon, New Atlantis, 1626: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2434/2434-h/2434-h.htm Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order tru…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 11: The Efficiency of Scientific Research (J.D. Bernal)
1:34:14
1:34:14
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:34:14
In this bonus episode, Daniël reads Chapter 5 of John Desmond Bernal’s book The Social Function of Science, entitled The Efficiency of Scientific Research in preparation of our upcoming podcast episode on research waste. You can read The Social Function of Science by Bernal at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.1880…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 10: Probatio Significativitatis Hypothesis Nihili
1:23:06
1:23:06
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:23:06
Shownotes Wilson, E. B. (1923). The Statistical Significance of Experimental Data. Science, 58(1493), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.58.1493.93 van Dongen, N. N. N., & van Grootel, L. (2021). Overview on the Null Hypothesis Significance Test. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hwk4n Stark, P. B., & Saltelli, A. (2018). Cargo‐cult statistics a…
…
continue reading
In this episode, we discuss the issue of publication bias. We discuss issues like: Do we learn anything from null results, given the current state of research practices? Is poorly done research still worth sharing with the scientific community? And how can we move toward a system where null results are informative and worth publishing? Shownotes Bo…
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Episode 8: Scientia Cultus Sarcinarum
1:03:05
1:03:05
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
1:03:05
In this episode, we discuss physicist Richard Feynman’s famous speech ‘Cargo Cult Science,’ which refers to work that has all the affectations of science without the actual application of the scientific method. We also discuss topics like: What is pathological science? How might cargo cult science and pathological be different from pseudo-science? …
…
continue reading
![Artwork](/static/images/128pixel.png)
1
Prologus 8: Cargo Cult Science (R.P. Feynman)
22:34
22:34
Play later
Play later
Lists
Like
Liked
22:34
In this bonus episode, we present a reading of the famous speech by physicist Richard Feynman on "science that isn't science," Cargo Cult Science, which will be the topic of the next episode. Enjoy.By Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens
…
continue reading
In this episode we discuss regulatory bodies their influence on the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Should regulatory bodies have the authority to affect the topics and methods of science? Is more highly regulated research actually better? And should we just give up on our own lines of research and become potato researchers? Shownotes Ki…
…
continue reading
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. Sho…
…
continue reading