Journée d'étude Cogmaster

"Good Laboratory Practices"

October 26th 2014-2015

Lieu: Salle des Actes, 45 rue des Saint Pères, 75006 Paris

The objective of the day is to elaborate a list of good laboratory practices while exploring the question of the experimenter's biases in data analysis. Students are split into groups of 5-6 and analyse a sample lab notebook describing a putative experiment.

To put things into practice, the Februrary Cogmaster presoutenances will function as a preregistration. In practice, if you are doing a experimental work, the recto-verso page should contain:

Here is the recommandation checklist for setting up your work in accordance with good practices.

Pour en savoir plus 1. Experimenter & Analysis Biases

To know more about analysis biases:

To know more about experimenter biases:

To know more about metaanalyses:

To know more about how to find the number of participants (sample size & power)

Pour en savoir plus 2 : The decline effect

To read


Pour en savoir plus 3 : Zombie beliefs

The relationship between science and society raises many debates, nowadays. E.g., cognitive and neuroscience are expected to provide education with knowledge about cognitive and learning processes that might possibly explain why what works works (and why what doesn’t work doesn’t). In this context the blossoming of misconceptions about mind-brain functioning – named “neuromyths” - is of both theoretical and pragmatic interest.


Choose 1 myth, answer the following 2 questions and presents them:


Additional references:

Pour en savoir plus 4. Scientific versus pseudo scientific explanations

The large diffusion of scientific myths and pseudo-science makes the case for the explicit education of critical thinking. How can critical thinking be improved?

To read:

Criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience

  1. A tendency to invoke ad hoc hypotheses, which can be thought of as “escape hatches” or loopholes, as a means of immunizing claims from falsification
  2. An absence of self-correction and an accompanying intellectual stagnation
  3. An emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation
  4. A tendency to place the burden of proof on skeptics, not proponents
  5. Excessive reliance on anecdotal and testimonial evidence to substantiate claims
  6. Evasion of the scrutiny afforded by peer review
  7. Absence of “connectivity” (Stanovich, 1997), that is, a failure to build on existing scientific knowledge
  8. Use of impressive-sounding jargon, whose primary purpose is to lend claims a facade of scientific respectability
  9. An absence of boundary conditions (Hines, 2003), that is, a failure to specify the parameters under which claims do not hold



Additional references:

Even more references:

Pour en savoir plus 5. "Misconducts" what to do?

Questions to ask oneself:

Pour en savoir plus: