3 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoI 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 agoAsking 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.