Search Episodes
Listen, Share, & Support
Listen to the latest episode
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe via RSS
Become a fan
Follow on Twitter

Support Us:

Please consider making a donation to help make this podcast possible. Any contribution, great or small, helps tremendously!

 
Subscribe to E-Mail Updates

Related Readings
  • Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    by Massimo Pigliucci
Sunday
Nov132016

RS 172 - Brian Nosek on "Why science needs openness"

Release date: November 13th, 2016

Brian Nosek

There's a growing anxiety about the quality of scientific research, as a depressingly large fraction of articles fail to replicate. Could "openness" solve that problem? This episode features Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology and founder of the Center for Open Science. He and Julia discuss what openness means, some clever approaches to boosting openness, and whether openness could have any downsides (for example, in the cases of peer review or data sharing).

Brian's Pick: "Consequences of Prejudice Against the Null Hypothesis" by Tony Greenwald

Podcast edited by Brent Silk

 

Full Transcripts 

Reader Comments (3)

Nice Post Amazin to know about it
November 14, 2016 | Unregistered Commenteripage Coupon 2017
A good episode. I've heard a lot of these ideas piecemeal before, so it was nice to have them brought together. I find myself agreeing with all of them.

Can I suggest a follow up episode on the costs and benefits of the tenure system. It seemed to be an unchallenged assumption that the US should stick with the tenure system. It's not something every country has. Maybe you could explore what the tenure system is supposed to achieve, whether it does or not, do a comparison to other countries and explore alternatives.

Another thought is that something like Scientia Salon might have received more support from academics, if they could've received some kind contribution credit for outreach to the general public. Without that academics had less incentive to take part.
November 18, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterNot An Academic
Actually, since we pay (through taxes) for research, the researchers should open their research to the public. We should get to see what we pay for, and this will create an incentive towards quality research.

Researchers should get career advancement for non conclusive findings, just as they get career advancement for findings that promote a particular theory. We can find an analog in policing. If we only reward police for making arrests, they tend to make a lot of arrests, some without merit. But, if we reward police simply for good policing, they tend to spend more time on patrol and investigating serious crimes.

Researchers should publish there findings first, then disclose their data. This protects them from plagiarism.

A lot of "Peer Reviewed Research" amounts to garbage. The Reviewer should have to disclose their name and the actual text of their review. This incentivizes Reviewers to make accurate reviews. An overly negative review would anger the Researcher, and an overly positive review would disappoint the readers.
December 7, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJameson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.