Nullius in Verba

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

In this episode we discuss exploratory experimentation, an iterative process used by scientists to better understand phenomena. We ask why exploratory research seems to be valued less in science, the importance of lab notebooks, and what makes for a good exploratory study. References: Steinle, F. (2016). Exploratory experiments: Ampère, Faraday, and the origins of electrodynamics. University of Pittsburgh press. Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221–233. Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge. Ditroilo, M., Mesquida ,Cristian, Abt ,Grant, & and Lakens, D. (2025). Exploratory research in sport and exercise science: Perceptions, challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 43(12), 1108–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2486871 Paul Meehl's Philosophical Psychology Lectures: https://meehl.umn.edu/video Höfler, M., Scherbaum, S., Kanske, P., McDonald, B., & Miller, R. (2022). Means to valuable exploration: I. The blending of confirmation and exploration and how to resolve it. Meta-Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2837

This is the second 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.