48 episodes

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.

Nullius in Verba Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

    • Science
    • 4.7 • 7 Ratings

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.

    Episode 34: Aestimatio et Emendatio Theoriarum

    Episode 34: Aestimatio et Emendatio Theoriarum

    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. M.I.T. Press.
    Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820), 1317–1323.
     

    • 1 hr 14 min
    Prologus 34: Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science (Faust & Meehl)

    Prologus 34: Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science (Faust & Meehl)

    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

    • 1 hr 2 min
    Episode 33: Risicae Theoreticae et Asterisci Tabulares

    Episode 33: Risicae Theoreticae et Asterisci Tabulares

    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.

    • 59 min
    Prologus 33: Paul E. Meehl

    Prologus 33: Paul E. Meehl

    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 University Press.

    • 40 min
    Episode 32: Impartialitas

    Episode 32: Impartialitas

    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 rate this podcast?
     
    Shownotes
    Armstrong, J. S. (1979). Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Science, 25(5), 423–428.
    Declaration of Interest by Stephen Senn: http://senns.uk/Declaration_Interest.htm
    Djørup, S., & Kappel, K. (2013). The norm of disinterestedness in science; a restorative analysis. SATS, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2013-0009
    Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001
    Feyerabend, Paul. "How to defend society against science." Philosophy: Basic Readings (1975): 261-271.
    Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231–19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116
    Janack, M. (2002). Dilemmas of objectivity. Social Epistemology, 16(3), 267-281.
    John, S. (2021). Objectivity in science. Cambridge University Press.
    Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
    Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423
    Mitroff, I. I. (1974). The subjective side of science: A philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo moon scientists (First Edition). Elsevier.
    A Russian polar researcher has been charged trying to stab a colleague to death at a remote Antarctic base https://www.businessinsider.com/sergey-savitsky-alleged-attempted-murder-at-antarctic-bellingshausen-2018-10 
    Stamenkovic, P. (2023). Facts and objectivity in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807
     

    • 1 hr 1 min
    Episode 31: Criticismus

    Episode 31: Criticismus

    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 on Some of Its Causes.
    Prasad, Vinay, and John PA Ioannidis. "Constructive and obsessive criticism in science." European journal of clinical investigation 52.11 (2022): e13839.
    Lakatos, I. (1968, January). Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (Vol. 69, pp. 149-186). Aristotelian Society, Wiley.
    LOWI: https://lowi.nl/en/home/ As an independent advisory body it plays a role in the complaints procedure about alleged violations of principles of research integrity.
    Holcombe, A. O. (2022). Ad hominem rhetoric in scientific psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12541
    Daniel C. Dennett: I've Been Thinking https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393868050 
    Phillip Stark textbook chapter on logical fallacies: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/reasoning.htm 
    Gelman, A., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2000). Type S error rates for classical and Bayesian single and multiple comparison procedures. Computational Statistics, 15(3), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001800000040
    Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
    PubPeer: https://pubpeer.com
     

    • 1 hr 15 min

Customer Reviews

4.7 out of 5
7 Ratings

7 Ratings

Top Podcasts In Science

Hidden Brain
Hidden Brain, Shankar Vedantam
Something You Should Know
Mike Carruthers | OmniCast Media | Cumulus Podcast Network
Ologies with Alie Ward
Alie Ward
Radiolab
WNYC Studios
Crash Course Pods: The Universe
Crash Course Pods, Complexly
Technically Speaking: An Intel Podcast
iHeartPodcasts

You Might Also Like

Decoding the Gurus
Christopher Kavanagh and Matthew Browne
Very Bad Wizards
Tamler Sommers & David Pizarro
The Studies Show
Tom Chivers and Stuart Ritchie
Robert Wright's Nonzero
Nonzero
Everything Hertz
Dan Quintana
Clearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg
Spencer Greenberg