Why Do Logically Incompatible Beliefs Seem Psychologically Compatible?

Andrew Shtulman, Andrew G. Young
{"title":"Why Do Logically Incompatible Beliefs Seem Psychologically Compatible?","authors":"Andrew Shtulman, Andrew G. Young","doi":"10.4324/9780203703809-11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Humans’ understanding of science is at once impressive and appalling. Humans, as a species, have uncovered the hidden causes of most natural phenomena, from rainbows to influenza to earthquakes. Unobservable causal agents, like germs and genes, have been discovered and studied and are now familiar to everyone, scientists and nonscientists alike. Even children are familiar with germs and genes, despite our ignorance of these entities for the majority of human history. On the other hand, individual humans often lack an understanding of core scientific ideas – ideas that most educated adults have encountered in books, museums, and classes but still fail to understand. National polls in the United States and other countries have revealed that millions of people believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, that atoms are smaller than electrons, and that the earth’s continents are fixed in place. Likewise, millions are skeptical that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, that climate change is caused by humans, and that humans evolved from nonhuman ancestors (National Science Board, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2015). Exposure to scientific ideas does not guarantee their comprehension or acceptance. While there are several reasons why scientific ideas remain elusive, one primary reason is that they conflict with the explanations we devise on our own about how the world works (Carey, 2009; Shtulman, 2017; Vosniadou, 1994). These explanations, termed “folk theories” or “intuitive theories,” are typically constructed in childhood prior to any formal instruction in the relevant domain. They are derived from a combination of inputs – innate concepts, empirical observations, culturally transmitted beliefs – and they serve the same function as scientific theories, namely, furnishing us with systematic and coherent inferences about natural phenomena (though see DiSessa, 2008, for an alternative view of how conceptual knowledge is structured).","PeriodicalId":183754,"journal":{"name":"What Is Scientific Knowledge?","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"What Is Scientific Knowledge?","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203703809-11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Humans’ understanding of science is at once impressive and appalling. Humans, as a species, have uncovered the hidden causes of most natural phenomena, from rainbows to influenza to earthquakes. Unobservable causal agents, like germs and genes, have been discovered and studied and are now familiar to everyone, scientists and nonscientists alike. Even children are familiar with germs and genes, despite our ignorance of these entities for the majority of human history. On the other hand, individual humans often lack an understanding of core scientific ideas – ideas that most educated adults have encountered in books, museums, and classes but still fail to understand. National polls in the United States and other countries have revealed that millions of people believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, that atoms are smaller than electrons, and that the earth’s continents are fixed in place. Likewise, millions are skeptical that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, that climate change is caused by humans, and that humans evolved from nonhuman ancestors (National Science Board, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2015). Exposure to scientific ideas does not guarantee their comprehension or acceptance. While there are several reasons why scientific ideas remain elusive, one primary reason is that they conflict with the explanations we devise on our own about how the world works (Carey, 2009; Shtulman, 2017; Vosniadou, 1994). These explanations, termed “folk theories” or “intuitive theories,” are typically constructed in childhood prior to any formal instruction in the relevant domain. They are derived from a combination of inputs – innate concepts, empirical observations, culturally transmitted beliefs – and they serve the same function as scientific theories, namely, furnishing us with systematic and coherent inferences about natural phenomena (though see DiSessa, 2008, for an alternative view of how conceptual knowledge is structured).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么逻辑上不相容的信念在心理上似乎是相容的?
人类对科学的理解既令人印象深刻,又令人震惊。人类,作为一个物种,已经发现了大多数自然现象的隐藏原因,从彩虹到流感再到地震。不可观察的因果因素,如细菌和基因,已经被发现和研究,现在每个人都很熟悉,科学家和非科学家都一样。即使是孩子也熟悉细菌和基因,尽管在人类历史的大部分时间里,我们对这些实体一无所知。另一方面,个人往往缺乏对核心科学思想的理解——这些思想是大多数受过教育的成年人在书本、博物馆和课堂上遇到的,但仍然无法理解的。美国和其他国家的民意调查显示,数以百万计的人相信恐龙与人类共存,原子比电子小,地球的大陆是固定的。同样,数百万人怀疑转基因食品是否安全,气候变化是由人类引起的,以及人类是从非人类祖先进化而来的(国家科学委员会,2018;皮尤研究中心,2015)。接触科学思想并不能保证理解或接受它们。虽然科学思想仍然难以捉摸有几个原因,但一个主要原因是它们与我们自己设计的关于世界如何运作的解释相冲突(Carey, 2009;Shtulman, 2017;Vosniadou, 1994)。这些解释被称为“民间理论”或“直觉理论”,通常是在儿童时期在相关领域的任何正式指导之前构建的。它们来自于输入的组合——先天概念、经验观察、文化传播的信念——它们与科学理论具有相同的功能,即为我们提供关于自然现象的系统和连贯的推论(尽管参见DiSessa, 2008,关于概念知识如何构建的另一种观点)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Are the Limits of Scientific Explanation? How Do Medical Researchers Make Causal Inferences? Is Science Really Value Free and Objective? How Can We Tell Science from Pseudoscience? What Grounds Do We Have for the Validity of Scientific Findings?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1