Parhaat Smriti Mehta Podcastit (2024)

1
Episode 46: Invaliditas Externa 1:03:02

4h ago1:03:02

1:03:02

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…

1
Prologus 46: In Defense of External Invalidity (D. G. Mook) 52:55

7d ago52:55

52:55

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.38.4.379Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 45: Apprenticiatus 51:15

14d ago51:15

51:15

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 trainin…

1
Episode 44: Reprehensio Scientiae Aperta 1:00:09

28d ago1:00:09

1:00:09

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.Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 43: Historia Casus Methodi Scientifica 1:00:45

1M ago1:00:45

1:00:45

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…

1
Prologus 43: A Case Study in Scientific Method (Skinner) 1:03:17

2M ago1:03:17

1:03:17

In preparation for the next episode, in which we discuss this paper, here is a reading of: Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221-233.Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 42: Aestimatio Scriptorum 1:05:34

2M ago1:05:34

1:05:34

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 mem…

1
Episode 41: Sodalitates Academicae 1:03:54

2M ago1:03:54

1:03:54

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 Rep…

1
Episode 40: Tabula de Ethicis Recensionibus 1:13:28

3M ago1:13:28

1:13:28

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. Schra…

1
Episode 39: Activismus 1:13:10

3M ago1:13:10

1:13:10

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 Ideologi…

1
Episode 38 - Replicatio - II 54:58

4M ago54:58

54:58

In this episode, we continue our discussion of replications. We talk about how to analyze replication studies, which studies are worth replicating, and what is the status of replications in other scientific disciplines. Shownotes Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://…

1
Episode 37: Replicatio - I 55:11

4M ago55:11

55:11

In the next two episodes, we will discuss replication studies, which are essential to building reliable scientific knowledge. Shownotes Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087978 Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psycho…

1
Prologus 37: Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research (N. C. Smith) 28:28

4M ago28:28

28:28

Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25(10), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 36: Leges Eponymae 1:11:45

5M ago1:11:45

1:11:45

In this episode, we discuss a fun mix of eponymous laws, which are laws named after individuals who postulate them. Shownotes Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas Theorem and the Matthews Effe…

1
Episode 35: Praedictio Clinica Versus Statistica 1:08:16

5M ago1:08:16

1:08:16

In this final episode of the three-part series on the Philosophical Psychology lectures by Paul Meehl, we discuss lectures 6-8, which cover the ten obfuscating factors in "soft areas" of psychology and a host of advice Meehl provides for researchers, reviewers, editors, and educators on how to improve practice. Shownotes Krefeld-Schwalb, A., Sugerm…

1
Episode 34: Aestimatio et Emendatio Theoriarum 1:14:07

6M ago1:14:07

1:14:07

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…

1
Prologus 34: Using scientific methods to resolve questions in the history and philosophy of science (Faust & Meehl) 1:02:07

6M ago1:02:07

1:02:07

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)80381-8Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 33: Risicae Theoreticae et Asterisci Tabulares 59:23

6M ago59:23

59:23

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 g…

1
Prologus 33: Paul E. Meehl 40:22

6M ago40:22

40:22

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 Univer…

1
Episode 32: Impartialitas 1:01:55

7M ago1:01:55

1:01:55

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 r…

1
Episode 31: Criticismus 1:15:58

7M ago1:15:58

1:15:58

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…

1
Episode 30: Theoria Aedificans - Pars II 56:27

7M ago56:27

56:27

In this episode, we continue discussing Dubin’s 8-step method for theory building. We discuss the measurement of theoretical constructs, using logical propositions to make falsifiable predictions from theories, and the importance of specifying boundary conditions. Shownotes Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory Construction and Model-building Sk…

1
Episode 29: Theoria Aedificans - Pars I 52:26

8M ago52:26

52:26

In this episode we discussed the 8-step method of theory building proposed by Robin Dubin in his classic 1969 book Theory Building. Shownotes Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Free Press. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/160506.html Lynham, S. A. (2002). Quantitative Research and Theory Building: Dubin’s Method. Advances in Developin…

1
Episode 28: Scientia Cumulativa 1:12:04

8M ago1:12:04

1:12:04

In this episode, we discuss the barriers to cumulative science, including inconsistent measurement tools, overreliance on single studies, and the large volume of research publications. Can replications, interdisciplinary collaborations, and prospective meta-analyses help us solve this issue? Can AI solve all our problems? And do most scientists tre…

1
Prologus 28: Chaos in the Brickyard (B. K. Forscher) 5:40

9M ago5:40

5:40

A reading of:Forscher, B. K. (1963). Chaos in the Brickyard. Science, 142(3590), 339–339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.142.3590.339Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 27: Vocans Ictus Tuos - Pars II 59:29

9M ago59:29

59:29

In today’s episode, we continue our conversation about preregistration. How flexible can we be when we preregister, without increasing flexibility in our analysis? How well do people preregister, and what does a good preregistration look like? And how do we deal with deviations from preregistrations? Shownotes Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. Fre…

1
Episode 26: Vocans Ictus Tuos - Pars I 1:01:34

9M ago1:01:34

1:01:34

In this two part episode we discuss the fine art of preregistration. We go back into the history of preregistration, its evolution, and current use. Do we preregister to control the Type 1 error rate, or to show that we derived our prediction from theory a priori? Can and should we preregister exploratory or secondary data analysis? And how severe …

1
Episode 25: Reverentia Ad Auctoritatem 51:23

10M ago51:23

51:23

In the first episode of 2024, we discuss the double-edged sword: reverence to authority. Should scientists respect others on whose shoulders they stand? Or should they be wary of appeal to authority? How should scientists deal with other sources of authority in science, like for example, the government or academic societies? And how can we differen…

1
Prologus 25: The Fixation of Belief (C. S. Peirce) 32:52

10M ago32:52

32:52

The Fixation of Belief. Charles S. Peirce. Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), 1-15. http://peirce.org/writings/p107.htmlKirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 24: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars II 42:20

10M ago42:20

42:20

In this second installment of The Anticreativity Letters, we continue discussing the Tempter's tactics for stifling creativity and how to overcome them.Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 23: Contra Creativitatem Epistolae - Pars I 48:07

11M ago48:07

48:07

In the first of a two-part episode, we discuss The Anticreativity Letters by Richard Nisbett, in which a senior "tempter" advises a junior tempter on ways to prevent a young psychologist from being a productive and creative scientist. Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psych…

1
Prologus 23: The Anticreativity Letters (R. E. Nisbett) 35:55

11M ago35:55

35:55

A reading of: Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45(9), 1078–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1078Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 22: Magisterium 57:28

11M ago57:28

57:28

In today’s episode, we discuss the role of mentorship in academia. What are the characteristics of a good mentor-mentee relationship? What are the qualities of good mentors and good mentees? Does mentorship play a role in the development of scientific knowledge? And could mentors and mentees benefit from couples therapy? Note: D.I.H.C is pronounced…

1
Episode 21: Verifica Sed Confide 55:08

12M ago55:08

55:08

In this episode, we discuss the role of trust in science. Why should we verify but trust other scientists? What are the prerequisites for building trust within the scientific community? Who is ultimately responsible for verifying our claims and practices that bolster those claims? And should we give personality tests to everyone who enters academia…

1
Prologus 21: Role of Trust in Knowledge (J. Hardwig) 46:57

12M ago46:57

46:57

In advance of our episode Verify but Trust, a reading of John Hardwig's paper The Role of Trust in Science. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 20: Recensio Aequalium 1:12:06

12M ago1:12:06

1:12:06

In today’s episode, we discuss the peer review process---its history, its present, and its future. How does peer review work? How long has it existed in its current form? Should reviews be open and signed? Should reviewers be paid for their hard labor? Should we just abandon the peer review process, or does it have a positive role to play? Shownote…

1
Final Final Comments! 1:02:24

12M ago1:02:24

1:02:24

Super top secret bonus episode because Paul misses Rachel and because we can do what we want you're not the boss of us.Kirjoittanut Paul Connor

1
Episode 19: Quantifauxcation 1:18:33

1y ago1:18:33

1:18:33

In this episode, we discuss Quantifauxcation, described by statistician Philip Stark as “situations in which a number is, in effect, made up, and then is given credence merely because it is quantitative.” We give examples of quantifauxcation in psychology, including errors of the third kind. We spend the second half of the podcast discussing how to…

1
Prologus 19: Problem-Centering vs. Mean-Centering in Science (A. H. Maslow) 25:23

1y ago25:23

25:23

Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 18: Vitia Vocationalis 1:15:02

1y ago1:15:02

1:15:02

In today’s episode, we discuss intellectual vices. How can we tell the difference between justified confidence and unjustified arrogance? How do we deal with feelings of envy or negative comparison with other scientists? What is the difference between building one’s career and careerism? And what do we do about scientists who do not care about the …

1
Episode 17: Snobismus 1:19:51

1y ago1:19:51

1:19:51

In this episode, we discuss scientific snobbery and the ways in which it affects our interactions with and perceptions of other scientists. What are the reasons for hierarchies among different disciplines, institutions, and approaches to science? What are some ways in which snobbery manifests in science? And is it snobby to not want to present scie…

1
Episode 16: Vetus Crisi Replicatio 42:32

1y ago42:32

42:32

In this episode, we continue our conversation on the replication crisis⏤Which methodological, theoretical, and practical concerns did psychologists raise half a century ago? What has changed, and what remains the same, during the current crisis? Shownotes Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular …

1
Prologus 16: Investigator Data Analysis Effect (T. X. Barber) 50:55

1y ago50:55

50:55

Reading of the chapter "Investigator Data Analysis Effect" from the book: Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. Pergamon Press.Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 15: Novum Crisi Replicati 55:42

1y ago55:42

55:42

In this episode, we discuss the replication crisis in psychology which has been an important topic of discussion for the last decade. We revisit some key events from the start of the replication crisis, such as the publication of Daryl Bem's studies on precognition, the paper False Positive Psychology, and the Reproducibility Project and share pers…

1
Episode 14: Capax Mentis 1:04:34

1y ago1:04:34

1:04:34

In this episode we reflect on the role of intelligence in scientist. How much does intelligence matter in science, and which other characteristics might play a role in doing good science? Do scientist need to be extremely intelligent or can anyone do science? And what is the role of stupidity in science? Capax Mentis roughly translates to "capacity…

1
Prologus 14: How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker? (P. B. Medawar) 15:28

1y ago15:28

15:28

As prologue to the next episode on how smart one needs to be to be a scientist, we present a reading of chapter 2 "How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker?" by Peter B. Medawar from his 1979 book 'Advice to a young scientist'. Our next episode was inspired by the section "Am I brainy enough to be a scientist?" https://www.…

1
Episode 13: Chmess 1:04:51

1+ y ago1:04:51

1:04:51

In this episode we discuss Daniel Dennett's distinction between chess, or research worth doing, and 'chmess,' research not worth doing. We discuss ways to determine whether our research is chess or chmess, and how to avoid being sucked into lines of research we don't particularly care about. Shownotes Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths abou…

1
Prologus 13: Chmess (D. C. Dennett) 13:55

1+ y ago13:55

13:55

As prologue to the next episode on Chmess, we present a reading of a paper by Daniel C. Dennett: Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39–41.Kirjoittanut Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens

1
Episode 12: Virtutes Vocationalis 1:26:43

1+ y ago1:26:43

1:26:43

In today's episode, we discuss vocational virtues⸺scientific principles that should guide the behavior of scientists. We discuss whether we agree with values put forth by numerous scientists, including Ivan Pavlov, Peter Medawar, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Barry Schwartz, among others, and share our own. Correction: At 56:24, Smriti mentions the book …

1
Prologus 12: Science, Scholarship, and Intellectual Virtues (B.J. Schwartz) 34:17

1+ y ago34:17

34:17

As prologue to the next episode on vocational virtues, we present a reading of a paper by Barry Schwartz: Schwartz, B. (2022). Science, scholarship, and intellectual virtues: A guide to what higher education should be like. Journal of Moral Education, 51(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1772211 (Published online: 19 Jun 2020) You ca…

Kuuntelemisen arvoisia podcasteja

Smriti Mehta podcastit

Kuuntelemisen arvoisia podcasteja

Pikakäyttöopas