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 truth?    Shownotes Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). The control of the content of conversation through...

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 scientific posters? Enjoy.    Shownotes:  Ego and Math (3Blue1Brown) M. V. Berry; Regular and irregular motion. AIP Conf. Proc. 15 September 1978; 46...

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 reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424 Rosenthal,...

Reading of the chapter "Investigator Data Analysis Effect" from the book: Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.

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 personal anecdotes about how it was to live through the replication crisis.   Shownotes:  Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence...

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 of mind." Smriti stupidly messed up her audio so the quality isn't great. Apologies!    Shownotes Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of...

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.google.nl/books/edition/Advice_To_A_Young_Scientist/3fg3DgAAQBAJ

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 about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39–41. Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21(4), 343. Folderol...

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.

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 This is Biology, which is written by Ernst Mayr, not E.O. Wilson.    Shownotes Pavlov, I. (1936). Bequest of Pavlov to the Academic Youth of His...

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 can read the paper here.  An episode from Smriti's previous podcast with Paul Connor where they discussed the paper with Barry can be found...

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 truths about chmess. Topoi, 25(1–2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-006-0005-2 Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009). Avoidable waste in...

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.2015.188098

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 and scientific crisis. Significance, 15(4), 40-43. Uygun Tunç, D., Tunç, M. N., & Lakens, D. (2023). The epistemic and pragmatic...

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 Bones, A. K. (2012). We Knew the Future All Along Scientific Hypothesizing is Much More Accurate Than Other Forms of Precognition—A Satire in One...

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? How do we know whether or not we’re in a cargo cult, and what can we do to make sure we're not fooling ourselves?   Shownotes Cargo Cult Science...

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. 

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 Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Central Potato Research...

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....

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...

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,...

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...

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. 

In this introductory episode, Daniël and Smriti share which podcasts they like, why they are starting their own, and how their connection to each other is also tied to podcasting. They also talk about the theme of the podcast, which is inspired by Francis Bacon’s delineation of the scientific method 400 years ago.