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.  

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

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.  

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 final installment of the three-part series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.

This is the second part of a three-episode series on Paul Meehl's unpublished book, The Seven Sacred Cows of Academia.

This is the first 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.  

Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives Conference: https://dornsife.usc.edu/cesr/censorship-in-the-sciences-interdisciplinary-perspectives/    How Woke Warriors Destroyed Anthropology - Elizabeth Weiss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpWN_CsuiRc&t=392s    Clark, C. J., Jussim, L., Frey, K., Stevens, S. T., Al-Gharbi, M., Aquino, K., ... & von Hippel, W. (2023). Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(48), e2301642120.    The vertebra of Galileo in Palace Bo in Padova: https://heritage.unipd.it/en/vertebra-galileo/    The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19723-8    Stefano Comino, Alberto Galasso, Clara Graziano, Censorship, industry structure, and creativity: evidence from the Catholic Inquisition in Renaissance Venice, The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2024, ewae015, https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewae015    Bernouilli’s fallacy https://aubreyclayton.com/bernoulli  Jerzy Neyman: A Positive Role Model in the History of Frequentist Statistics https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2021/09/jerzy-neyman-positive-role-model-in.html

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713 Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens, A. C. J. W. (2007). Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way. PLOS Medicine, 4(2), e28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028 Stroebe, W. (2016). Are most published social psychological findings false? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.017 Diekmann, A. (2011). Are Most Published Research Findings False? Jahrbücher Für Nationalökonomie Und Statistik, 231(5–6), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-606 Goodman, S., & Greenland, S. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Problems in the analysis. PLoS Medicine, 4(4), e168. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Author’s reply to Goodman and Greenland. PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e215.  

In preparation for our discussion of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis from 2005, we read a very similar paper published 40 years earlier: Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713

In this episode, we discuss what separates science from pseudoscience and touch upon the demarcation problem, the recent controversial podcast called the Telepathy Tapes, and the movie Ghostbusters. Enjoy.    Shownotes McLean v. Arkansas  Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2019). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press. Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate Animal Magnetism The Telepathy Tapes Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit. Moberger, V. (2020). Bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86(5), 595–611. Ghostbusters (1984) - Venkman's ESP Test Scene  

Conspiracy Stories Show Notes:  Zeitgeist documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film_series) Podcast Drang naar Samenhang: https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/drang-naar-samenhang/id1584797552 This is not a conspiracy theory documentary. https://www.everythingisaremix.info/tinact  Parker, M. (2000). Human Science as Conspiracy Theory. The Sociological Review, 48(2_suppl), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2000.tb03527.x Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261 Tage-gate episode of More of a Comment than a Question:  https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/5511751-tage-gate 

Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1983). Betrayers of the truth. New York : Simon and Schuster. http://archive.org/details/betrayersoftruth00broa Wolfgang Stroebe, Tom Postmes, & Russell Spears. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687   Zotero can track if you are citing retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/06/12/want-to-check-for-retractions-in-your-personal-library-and-get-alerts-for-free-now-you-can/   100% CI blog: The Untold Mystery of Rogue RA https://www.the100.ci/2024/12/18/rogue-ra/   Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193   Senior RIKEN scientist involved in stem cell scandal commits suicide https://www.science.org/content/article/senior-riken-scientist-involved-stem-cell-scandal-commits-suicide   Kis, A., Tur, E. M., Lakens, D., Vaesen, K., & Houkes, W. (2022). Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0274976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274976

Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes. Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856 Grievance studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair It is legal to own and/or read Mein Kampf in The Netherlands (and Germany). Hand, D. (2007). Deception and dishonesty with data: Fraud in science. Significance, 4(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00215.x Gross, C. (2016). Scientific Misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(Volume 67, 2016), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437 Paolo Macchiarini: https://www.science.org/content/article/macchiarini-guilty-misconduct-whistleblowers-share-blame-new-karolinska-institute The Truth about China’s Cash-for-Publication Policy: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/12/150506/the-truth-about-chinas-cash-for-publication-policy/ Claudine Gay plagiarism: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2024/01/22/harvard-releases-details-of-claudine-gay-investigation/ Many Co-Authors: https://manycoauthors.org/ Paper describing a replication study where students make up data: Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). The control of the content of conversation through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 25–30. Francesca Gino defamation case dismissed: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/12/judge-dismisses-gino-lawsuit-defamation-charges/ Retractions in Social Influence of the work of Guéguen: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431408, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431415, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431421   Diederik Stapel’s book: http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf   Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193

In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to Don Moore, Leif Nelson, Henry Wyneken, Charlotte Pennington, and Karan Paranganat for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes!   

In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to James Steele, Peder Isager, and Simen Leithe Tajet for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes!    Shownotes Roger Scruton Quote  Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203 Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831 Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 145–168). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n6 Vincent, S., & O’Mahoney, J. (2017). Critical realism and qualitative research: An introductory overview (G. Grandy, C. Cassell, & A. L. Cunliffe, Eds.; pp. 201–216). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212 Danermark, B. (2019). Applied interdisciplinary research: A critical realist perspective. Journal of Critical Realism, 18(4), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2019.1644983

You can listen to the podcast More of a Comment Than a Question here: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/ Our joint episode is a response to the episode ‘Final Final Final Comments’: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/16055645-final-final-final-comments

In preparation for our next episode, a joint recording with our friends from More of a Comment than a Question, we read a paper by Robert Cialdini about the value of social psychology for the general public.  Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We Have to Break Up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01091.x

How I Fail. Blog by Veronika Cheplygina https://veronikach.com/category/how-i-fail/ Arkin, R. (2011). Most Underappreciated: 50 Prominent Social Psychologists Describe Their Most Unloved Work. Oxford University Press. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 Sharpe, D. (2013). Why the resistance to statistical innovations? Bridging the communication gap. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034177 Anti-Creativity Letters episode: https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/prologus-23-the-anticreativity-letters-r-e-nisbett Rouder, J. N., Haaf, J. M., & Snyder, H. K. (2019). Minimizing Mistakes in Psychological Science. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918801915 Firestein, S. (2015). Failure: Why Science Is So Successful (First Edition). Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2019). My Biggest Research Mistake: Adventures and Misadventures in Psychological Research (1st edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.