Posted: 17 Oct 2012 02:54 PM PDT
Professional Physical Scientists Display Tenacious Teleological Tendencies: Purpose-Based Reasoning as a Cognitive Default.
By Kelemen, Deborah; Rottman, Joshua; Seston, Rebecca
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Oct 15 , 2012, No Pagination Specified.
Teleological explanations account for objects and events by reference to a functional consequence or purpose. Although they are popular in religion, they are unpopular in science: Physical scientists in particular explicitly reject them when explaining natural phenomena. However, prior research provides reasons to suspect that this explanatory form may represent a default explanatory preference. As a strong test of this hypothesis, we explored whether physical scientists endorse teleological explanations of natural phenomena when their information-processing resources are limited. In Study 1, physical scientists from top-ranked American universities judged explanations as true or false, either at speed or without time restriction. Like undergraduates and age-matched community participants, scientists demonstrated increased acceptance of unwarranted teleological explanations under speed despite maintaining high accuracy on control items. Scientists' overall endorsement of inaccurate teleological explanation was lower than comparison groups, however. In Study 2, we explored this further and found that the teleological tendencies of professional scientists did not differ from those of humanities scholars. Thus, although extended education appears to produce an overall reduction in inaccurate teleological explanation, specialization as a scientist does not, in itself, additionally ameliorate scientifically inaccurate purpose-based theories about the natural world. A religion-consistent default cognitive bias toward teleological explanation tenaciously persists and may have subtle but profound consequences for scientific progress. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
FREE PDF GRATIS
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Dois exemplos de posicionamentos ideológicos de cientistas ateus sobre o design/teleologia ser empiricamente detectado na natureza:
Francis Crick em seu livro What Mad Pusuit (1988), “… os biólogos devem constantemente ter em mente que o que eles vêem não tem design intencional, mas evoluiu…”, e Richard Dawkins, em O Relojoeiro Cego, “… A biologia é o estudo de coisas complexas que dão a impressão de ter um design intencional.”
|You are subscribed to email updates from Desafiando a Nomenklatura Científica |