4 ms·

Not surprising to me. Much of the activity you'd see in this experiment would be related to more mundane cognitive activity like language processing, semantic r

Not surprising to me. Much of the activity you'd see in this experiment would be related to more mundane cognitive activity like language processing, semantic recall (remembering facts like what's in the middle of our solar system), metamemory (e.g, where did I learn that?), guessing the intent of the question, and thinking about what's for lunch. Any activity related to theology could easily blend right in with this background activity. They're making the assumption that because theology is a "big issue" that it should stick out like a sore thumb on an fMRI. That's not necessary true. The average church-going Christian adult has probably heard about Jesus's life thousands of times in their life. They could easy answer a question about him without even considering the theological implications of the question. It's just another semantic detail to them. Edit: Added second paragraph.

tensor 17y ago
I think it would make for a more interesting test if they took brain images of the subjects reasoning about new statements rather than established facts. As you point out, it is a reasonable hypothesis that what they are measuring is simply recalling already established beliefs. The critical part is really why people come to their beliefs. Secondary to that is why people do not revisit established beliefs, and if they do, why do they maintain them.
- jeromec 17y ago
  I agree, because this is unfortunate: ... providing further proof that evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question.
- a-priori 17y ago
  Asking people about novel statements would be a huge improvement over the protocol they described. You probably would see a difference then. Generally, the brain evolved to be lazy. Our ancestors needed to spend their time finding food, not questioning reality, and so evolved to make a decision and move on. We only re-examine firmly-held beliefs when a great conflict arises and even then we spend a great deal of effort rationalizing to try to resolve the conflict without overturning the beliefs. Rational activities like science and philosophy, where you are forced to dig deeply into your assumptions, are very unnatural. That's why they're so hard to learn to do right.

tensor 17y ago

I think it would make for a more interesting test if they took brain images of the subjects reasoning about new statements rather than established facts. As you point out, it is a reasonable hypothesis that what they are measuring is simply recalling already established beliefs. The critical part is really why people come to their beliefs. Secondary to that is why people do not revisit established beliefs, and if they do, why do they maintain them.

jeromec 17y ago
I agree, because this is unfortunate: ... providing further proof that evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question.
a-priori 17y ago
Asking people about novel statements would be a huge improvement over the protocol they described. You probably would see a difference then. Generally, the brain evolved to be lazy. Our ancestors needed to spend their time finding food, not questioning reality, and so evolved to make a decision and move on. We only re-examine firmly-held beliefs when a great conflict arises and even then we spend a great deal of effort rationalizing to try to resolve the conflict without overturning the beliefs. Rational activities like science and philosophy, where you are forced to dig deeply into your assumptions, are very unnatural. That's why they're so hard to learn to do right.