In this episode, we delve into induction and deduction and talk further about issues related to generalizability. 

Shownotes

• Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (1953). Hutchinson &  Co. (Originally published in 1935)
• Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e1.
• Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American psychologist, 38(4), 379-387.
• Salmon, W. C. (1981). Rational Prediction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/32.2.115
• Reichenbach, H. (1938) [2006], Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Senn, S. (2007). Statistical issues in drug development (2nd ed). John Wiley & Sons.
• Ernst, M. D. (2004). Permutation Methods: A Basis for Exact Inference. Statistical Science, 19(4), 676–685. 
• Bacon, F. (1620). Instauratio magna [Novum organum]. London: John Bill.
• Urbach, P. (1982). Francis Bacon as a Precursor to Popper. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33(2), 113–132.

In this episode, we discuss the paper "In defense of external invalidity" by Douglas Mook. 

Shownotes

• Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387.
• Mook, D. G. (1989). The myth of external validity. Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life, 25-43.
• The case of Phineas Gage was written up: Harlow, J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head. The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (1828-1851), 39(20)

A reading of the paper In Defense of External Invalidty by Douglas G. Mook, which will be discussed in the next episode. 

• Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

In this episode, we discuss the role of apprenticeship in training scientists and researchers. What’s the difference between traditional apprenticeship and cognitive apprenticeship? Does graduate training live up to its promise as an apprenticeship model? What can we do to improve the modeling of skills that are to be taught during graduate training? 

Shownotes

• Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6-11.
• Gabrys, B. J., & Beltechi, A. (2012). Cognitive apprenticeship: The making of a scientist. In Reshaping doctoral education (pp. 144-155). Routledge.
• Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016). Rigorous science: a how-to guide. MBio, 7(6), 10-1128.
• Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford University Press.
• Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (M. J. Nye, Ed.). University of Chicago Press.

This is a live episode, recorded in Växjö, Sweden (Linnaeus university) on September 24, 2024, at the 5th meeting of the Open Science Community Sweden and the Swedish Reproducibility Network. Thanks to André Kalmendal at Mono (https://monovaxjo.se) for recording the episode. 

In this episode, we discuss the paper "A case history in scientific method" by B. F. Skinner

Shownotes

• Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American psychologist, 11(5), 221.
• Richter, C. P. (1953). Free research versus design research. Science, 118(3056), 91–93.
• https://archive.org/details/WaldenTwoChapter01

In preparation for the next episode, in which we discuss this paper, here is a reading of: 

In today’s episode, we discuss critically reading and appraising scientific articles. How do we select which articles to read carefully? Which heuristics are useful for assessing paper quality? And do open science practices actually lead to better quality papers? Enjoy. 

Shownotes

• Bacon, F. (1625). Of Studies. 
• PNAS Submissions contributed by NAS members "The contributing member submits the manuscript to PNAS along with the names of at least two experts in the field of the paper who have agreed to review the work and brief comments about why each of those reviewers was chosen."  https://www.pnas.org/pb-assets/authors/ifora-1720190309383.pdf 
• How many p-values just below 0.05 should we expect across multiple tests?  https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-probability-of-p-values-as-function.html 
• Lakens, D. (2024). When and How to Deviate From a Preregistration. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), 117094. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.117094 
• TIER protocol: https://www.projecttier.org/tier-protocol/protocol-4-0/ 
• Gino fraud investigation and excel meta-data: https://datacolada.org/109 
• REAPPRAISED checklist: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03959-6 
• Yang, Z., & Hung, I. W. (2021). Creative thinking facilitates perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 278.

In this episode, we talk about academic societies, professional organizations, and academic advocacy groups, focusing primarily on the discipline of psychology. What are their roles and responsibilities? Is it necessary for researchers to join such organizations? And should we bring back scholarly soirees? Enjoy. 

Shownotes

• Royal Society Referee Reports

• Psychological Science

• APA Divisions

• Consistori del Gay Saber

• ReproducibiliTea

• The Royal Society Soirées

In this episode, we discuss review boards for research with human subjects. Are they necessary? Are they efficient? Are scientists well equipped to make judgements about ethics? And are economists more ethical than psychologists? 

Shownotes

• Whitney, S. N. (2015). Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members. Springer.
• Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. JHU Press.
• Kinsey Reports
  • Masters & Johnson
• How Institutional Review Boards can be (and are) Weaponized Against Academic Freedom
• Weaponizing the IRB 2.0
• Psychologists’ Involvement in Torture and the APA. Psychology Today.

In this episode, we discuss activism in science. How do political and personal values affect science? When is activism just part of the job? And should one be careful about activism in the classroom? Enjoy.  

Shownotes: 

• Frisby, C. L., Redding, R. E., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2023). Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: An Introduction. In Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (pp. 1-14). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• McCaughey, M. (2023). The Trouble with Scholar-Activists. AAUP. 
• McCaughey, M. (2024). Against Scholar Activists. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. 
• Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2023). Political bias in the social sciences: A critical, theoretical, and empirical review. Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions, 97-146.
• Sargent, R. M. (2012). From Bacon to Banks: The vision and the realities of pursuing science for the common good. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(1), 82-90.
• Weber, M. (1946). Science as a Vocation. In Science and the Quest for Reality (pp. 382-394). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.