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.

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.

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.
• Tal Yarkoni - No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you
• Tom Leher - Lobachevsky (1953)

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 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/ 

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 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

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

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

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