Nullius in Verba

Episode 79: Dissensio - II 19.04.2026 47dk

In this episode, we continue our discussion of disagreement in science, shifting the conversation from why it matters to how to do it well. Shownotes Paul Graham. (2008). How to disagree. Rapoport's Rules. Cass Sunstien. The Rapoport Rules. Preregistration is redundant, at best. An Evidence-Based Critique of the Cass Review Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 74–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280600681248 Neyman, J. (1961). Silver Jubilee of My Dispute With Fisher. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 3, 145–154.

Episode 78: Dissensio - I 04.04.2026 1sa 1dk

This is a two-part episode on the role of disagreement in science. In the first part, we discuss the "why," before moving on to the "how" in the next episode. Enjoy. Shownotes Dellsén, F., & Baghramian, M. (2021). Disagreement in science: Introduction to the special issue. Synthese, 198(Suppl 25), 6011-6021. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson. Seidel, M. (2021). Kuhn’s two accounts of rational disagreement in science: an interpretation and critique. Synthese, 198(25), 6023-6051. Shaw, J. (2021). Feyerabend and manufactured disagreement: reflections on expertise, consensus, and science policy. Synthese, 198(25), 6053-6084.

Episode 77: Miscitatio 13.03.2026 1sa 11dk

In this episode, we discuss the problem of miscitation. How often are citations to the scientific literature outright misleading? Do we really need to spell out that people are supposed to read what they cite? What can we learn from other fields? Or should we just live with the fact that a decent percentage of citations in the literature are wrong? Enjoy. Careless citations don't just spread scientific myths – they can make them stronger (Nature) Cobb, C. L., Crumly, B., Montero-Zamora, P., Schwartz, S. J., & Martínez Jr, C. R. (2024). The problem of miscitation in psychological science: Righting the ship. American Psychologist, 79(2), 299–311. Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Leonard, S. R., & Simmering, V. R. (2025). Cognitive biases and research miscitations. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12589. Qinyue Liu, Amira Barhoumi, Cyril Labbé. (2024). Miscitations in scientific papers: Dataset and detection. International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval. Glasgow, United Kingdom. Lazonder, A. W., & Janssen, N. (2022). Quotation accuracy in educational research articles. Educational Research Review, 35(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100430 James, W. (1914). The energies of men. New York : Moffat, Yard and Company. http://archive.org/details/energiesofmen00jameuoft Beyerstein, B.L. (1999) Whence cometh the myth that we only use ten percent of our brains? In, S. Della Sala (Ed.), Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries Jergas, H., & Baethge, C. (2015). Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 3, e1364. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1364 Bruton, S. V., Macchione, A. L., Brown, M., & Hosseini, M. (2025). Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2 Simkin, M., & Roychowdhury, V. (2006). Do You Sincerely Want to Be Cited? Or: Read Before You Cite. Significance, 3(4), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2006.00202.x Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Leonard, S. R., & Simmering, V. R. (2025). Cognitive biases and research miscitations. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12589. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12589 Bluebook: https://www.legalbluebook.com

Episode 76: Incitamenta - II 27.02.2026 43dk

In this two-part episode, we discuss incentives in science and academia. We discuss the various incentives in science, including recognition, citations, money, and the kick in the discovery. Shownotes Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 377–390. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 699–714. Merton, R. K. (1963). Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 4(2), 237–282. Stephan, P. (2015). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press. Tal Yarkoni - No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you Tom Leher - Lobachevsky (1953)

Episode 75: Incitamenta - I 15.02.2026 51dk

In this two-part episode, we discuss incentives in science and academia. We discuss the various incentives in science, including recognition, citations, money, and the kick in the discovery. Shownotes Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 377–390. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 699–714. Merton, R. K. (1963). Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 4(2), 237–282. Stephan, P. (2015). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.

Episode 74: Notiones Vague 30.01.2026 1sa 7dk

In this episode, we discuss the problems associated with vague concepts in psychological science. We talk about the jingle-jangle fallacy, the trade-off between broad concepts and more precise concepts, if we should generate databases of conceptual definitions, and how the reward structures can get in the way of specifying concepts clearly. Shownotes Aikins, H. A. (1902). The principles of logic. H. Holt and Company. https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.principlesoflogi00aiki/ Chalmers, D. J. (2025). What is conceptual engineering and what should it be? Inquiry, 68(9), 2902–2919. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1817141 Gerring, J. (1999). What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235246 Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella Advocates Versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle Model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199 Sartori, G. (1970). Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. The American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356 Thorndike, E. L. (Edward L. (with University of California Libraries). (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York : Science Press. http://archive.org/details/theoryofmentalso00thor Truman Lee Kelley, (1927). Interpretation of education measurements. World book company. http://archive.org/details/bwb_P9-AQI-186 APA Dictionary of Psychology: https://dictionary.apa.org/

Episode 73: Scientismus - II 16.01.2026 56dk

In this episode, we continue our discussion of scientism. We talk about 6 problems with scientism that have been raised by Susan Haack, if we should feel bad about having some sympathy for scientism, and whether the contributions of all scientifici disciplines deserved the label of 'knowledge'. Enjoy. References: Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme, 3(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20123151 Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68(9), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032850 Peels, R. (2023). Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: What science can learn from mainstream religion. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246 de Ridder, Jeroen. “Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3, no. 12 (2014): 23-39. https://social-epistemology.com/2014/11/03/science-and-scientism-in-popular-science-writing-jeroen-de-ridder/ Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 615–643. Mizrahi, M. (2017). What’s so bad about scientism? Social Epistemology, 31(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1297505 Hayek, F. A. (1952). The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Rulkens, C. C. S., Peels, R., Stols-Witlox, M., Meloni, S., Lechner, I. M., & Bouter, L. (2025). The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: A replication study in art history. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2

Episode 72: Scientismus - I 02.01.2026 47dk

In this two-part episode, we delve into the topic of scientism. Is science the best way to generate knowledge? Or are we giving too much deference to science if we believe this? In this first part, we discuss what scientism is, what - if anything - is wrong with scientism, and whether it is bad to be a scien-ti-sim-ist? References: Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme, 3(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme20123151 Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist, 68(9), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032850 Peels, R. (2023). Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: What science can learn from mainstream religion. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246 de Ridder, Jeroen. “Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3, no. 12 (2014): 23-39. https://social-epistemology.com/2014/11/03/science-and-scientism-in-popular-science-writing-jeroen-de-ridder/ Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 615–643. Mizrahi, M. (2017). What’s so bad about scientism? Social Epistemology, 31(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1297505 Hayek, F. A. (1952). The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Rulkens, C. C. S., Peels, R., Stols-Witlox, M., Meloni, S., Lechner, I. M., & Bouter, L. (2025). The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: A replication study in art history. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1347. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05523-2

Episode 71: Commentarius Scientificus: Fraus? 29.11.2025 54dk

In this episode, we discuss "Is the scientific paper a fraud?" by Sir Peter Medawar. Shownotes Medawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31. Ross, G. R., Meloy, M. G., & Bolton, L. E. (2021). Disorder and downsizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 959–977. The footnote reads: "Like many consumers, we were inspired by Marie Kondo to declutter our homes—and also to conduct this research! Note that our work is not a test of the KonMari method per se but rather an investigation of ideas—on dis/order, waste aversion, and selection/rejection (as these quotes illustrate)—inspired by her writing and the surprising lack of research on downsizing." Karataş, M., & Cutright, K. M. (2023). Thinking about God increases acceptance of artificial intelligence in decision-making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(33), e2218961120. Richard Feynman on finding new laws

Prologus 71: Is the Scientific Paper A Fraud (P. Medawar) 21.11.2025 16dk

Medawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31.

Episode 70: Scientia Tacita 14.11.2025 1sa 16dk

In this episode, we try to make the concept of tacit knowledge explicit. How much of our scientific knowledge depends on knowledge that we can't communicate directly? How can we replicate studies, if they might rely on tacit knowledge? And why has the concept itself not been made more explicit in the last 45 years? Enjoy. Collins, H. (2012). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo8461024.html Franklin, A., & Collins, H. (2016). Two Kinds of Case Study and a New Agreement. In T. Sauer & R. Scholl (Eds.), The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies (pp. 95–121). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_6 Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo6035368.html Collins, H. M. (1975). The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics. Sociology, 9(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857500900202 Gerholm, T. (1990). On Tacit Knowledge in Academia. European Journal of Education, 25(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1503316

Episode 69: Fraus P-Valoris - II 31.10.2025 45dk

In this episode, we continue the discussion on p-hacking. Were the accusations of p-hacking valid? And how can one avoid said accusations? What are the reasons for p-hacking? And what are some solutions? Shownotes Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 562–571. Introduction to the Special Section on Research Practices (Barbara Spellman)

Episode 68: Fraus P-Valoris - I 10.10.2025 43dk

In this two-part episode, we delve into the phenomenon of p-hacking. What are the various terms used to describe practices that inflate error rates? How does terminology shape our understanding and bring about change? What are its necessary and sufficient conditions, and which practices are most common? Shownotes Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. Stefan, A. M., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2023). Big little lies: A compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 220346. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52.

Episode 67: Investigatio Inhonesta 28.09.2025 1sa

In this episode, we discuss unethical research. What are some examples of egregious violations of ethical guidelines? What are some more subtle ways in which research can be unethical?And what should we do with results obtained through unethical research? Shownotes The Nuremberg Code The Declaration of Helsinki Three Identical Strangers The ethical implications of the "Monster Study" 'Little Albert' regains his identity Caplan, A. L. (2021). How should we regard information gathered in Nazi experiments?. AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(1), 55-58. Is it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives?

Episode 66: Psychologia Controversiae 11.09.2025 1sa 2dk

Boring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273

Prologus 66: The Psychology of Controversy (E. G. Boring) 05.09.2025 1sa 5dk

Boring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273

Episode 65: Scientia de Scientia - II 29.08.2025 55dk

In the second episode on metascience, we discuss the benefits of metascientific study according to Mario Bunge, some key milestones in sociology, psychology, and anthropology of science, and whether there should be a science of the science of science. Shownotes Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. McMillian & Co. https://archive.org/details/englishmenofscie00galtuoft Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage Publications. Candolle, A. de (with Fisher - University of Toronto). (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siècles; suivie d’autres études sur des sujets scientifiques, en particulier sur la sélection dans l’espèce humaine. Genève, Georg. http://archive.org/details/histoiredesscie00cand Vaesen, K. (2021). French Neopositivism and the Logic, Psychology, and Sociology of Scientific Discovery. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 11(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/712934

Episode 64: Scientia de Scientia - I 16.08.2025 46dk

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.

Prologus 64: Why Metascience? (M. Bunge) 08.08.2025 49dk

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

Episode 63: Experimenta Praematura 01.08.2025 1sa 8dk

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. Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 2–14. Brower, D. (1949). The problem of quantification in psychological science. Psychological Review, 56(6), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061802 Danziger, K. (1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the social sciences, 15(1), 1-13.