Literature DB >> 23067062

Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default.

Deborah Kelemen1, Joshua Rottman, Rebecca Seston.   

Abstract

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) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23067062     DOI: 10.1037/a0030399

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  34 in total

1.  In the name of God: How children and adults judge agents who act for religious versus secular reasons.

Authors:  Larisa Heiphetz; Elizabeth S Spelke; Liane L Young
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2015-08-11

2.  Contextual utility affects the perceived quality of explanations.

Authors:  Nadya Vasilyeva; Daniel Wilkenfeld; Tania Lombrozo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-10

3.  Cross-Cultural Differences in the Influences of Spiritual and Religious Tendencies on Beliefs in Genetic Determinism and Family Health History Communication: A Teleological Approach.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2019-10

Review 4.  Historical pitfalls and new directions in the neuroscience of emotion.

Authors:  Lisa Feldman Barrett; Ajay B Satpute
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Aversion to playing God and moral condemnation of technology and science.

Authors:  Adam Waytz; Liane Young
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  What is an emotion?

Authors:  Ralph Adolphs; Leonard Mlodinow; Lisa Feldman Barrett
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 7.  How Children and Adults Represent God's Mind.

Authors:  Larisa Heiphetz; Jonathan D Lane; Adam Waytz; Liane L Young
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-03-23

8.  Mental simulation and meaning in life.

Authors:  Adam Waytz; Hal E Hershfield; Diana I Tamir
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2015-02

Review 9.  Visual re-identification of individual objects: a core problem for organisms and AI.

Authors:  Chris Fields
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2015-10-08

10.  Developmental Changes in Strategies for Gathering Evidence About Biological Kinds.

Authors:  Emily Foster-Hanson; Kelsey Moty; Amanda Cardarelli; John Daryl Ocampo; Marjorie Rhodes
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2020-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.