A little over a week ago I linked to an article in Science describing research in developmental psychology that helps to explain the resistance scientific ideas sometimes encounter from non-scientists (source; my comment). Access to the Science article requires a subscription.
I just learned that there is a longer article by the same authors, Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg, at Edge. Here's the bottom line:
The developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest.
Leave a comment