Podcast
Nullius in Verba
Hosted by Smriti Mehta and Daniël Lakens · EN
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.
Our logo is an homage to the title page of Novum Organum, which depicts a galleon passing between the mythical Pillars of Hercules on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar. The title of the podcast comes from the motto of the Royal Society, set in typeface Kepler by Robert Slimbach. Our theme song is Newton’s Cradle by Grandbrothers.
21episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Episode 72: Scientismus - I
Jan 200:47:40Tap to summarizeIn 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
Transcribe →Episode 71: Commentarius Scientificus: Fraus?
Nov 2900:54:09Tap to summarizeIn 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
Transcribe →Prologus 71: Is the Scientific Paper A Fraud (P. Medawar)
Nov 2100:16:18Tap to summarizeMedawar, P. (1999). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Communicating Science: Professional Contexts, 27–31.
Transcribe →Episode 70: Scientia Tacita
Nov 1401:16:21Tap to summarizeIn 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
Transcribe →Episode 69: Fraus P-Valoris - II
Oct 3100:45:57Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we continue the discussion on p-hacking. Were the accusations of p-hacking valid? And how can one avoid said accusations? What are the reasons for p-hacking? And what are some solutions? Shownotes Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 562–571. Introduction to the Special Section on Research Practices (Barbara Spellman)
Transcribe →Episode 68: Fraus P-Valoris - I
Oct 1000:43:14Tap to summarizeIn this two-part episode, we delve into the phenomenon of p-hacking. What are the various terms used to describe practices that inflate error rates? How does terminology shape our understanding and bring about change? What are its necessary and sufficient conditions, and which practices are most common? Shownotes Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. Stefan, A. M., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2023). Big little lies: A compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 220346. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52.
Transcribe →Episode 67: Investigatio Inhonesta
Sep 2801:00:49Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we discuss unethical research. What are some examples of egregious violations of ethical guidelines? What are some more subtle ways in which research can be unethical?And what should we do with results obtained through unethical research? Shownotes The Nuremberg Code The Declaration of Helsinki Three Identical Strangers The ethical implications of the "Monster Study" 'Little Albert' regains his identity Caplan, A. L. (2021). How should we regard information gathered in Nazi experiments?. AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(1), 55-58. Is it right to use Nazi research if it can save lives?
Transcribe →Episode 66: Psychologia Controversiae
Sep 1101:02:34Tap to summarizeBoring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273
Transcribe →Prologus 66: The Psychology of Controversy (E. G. Boring)
Sep 501:05:25Tap to summarizeBoring, E. G. (1929). The psychology of controversy. Psychological Review, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072273
Transcribe →Episode 65: Scientia de Scientia - II
Aug 2900:55:50Tap to summarizeIn the second episode on metascience, we discuss the benefits of metascientific study according to Mario Bunge, some key milestones in sociology, psychology, and anthropology of science, and whether there should be a science of the science of science. Shownotes Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. McMillian & Co. https://archive.org/details/englishmenofscie00galtuoft Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage Publications. Candolle, A. de (with Fisher - University of Toronto). (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siècles; suivie d’autres études sur des sujets scientifiques, en particulier sur la sélection dans l’espèce humaine. Genève, Georg. http://archive.org/details/histoiredesscie00cand Vaesen, K. (2021). French Neopositivism and the Logic, Psychology, and Sociology of Scientific Discovery. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 11(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/712934
Transcribe →