A more interesting control would be to have two groups: one which had no direct experience in proving a statement, and another that had empirically proven a sta

A more interesting control would be to have two groups: one which had no direct experience in proving a statement, and another that had empirically proven a statement. You could ask a group of normal folks whether equilateral triangles always have internal angles of 60˚ and then you could ask some mathematics grad students the same question. The key distinction I'm going after here is whether a fact believed on authority or believed because of empirical proof. I believe that the earth rotates around the Sun and that gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/s^2 and that there once existed a fellow named Kublai Khan (who in Xanadu did a stately pleasure dome decree). But I believe all of these things because I read about them in books written by experts, not because I made observations with a telescope and did the orbital calculations, or because I've timed dropping objects from various heights, or because I've examined the historical record of the Yuan Dynasty. Presumably an expert who has done the empirical work will not accept these facts on the basis of belief, but on the basis of real-world observed evidence/proof. That ought to trigger a different part of the brain than in someone who believes a scientific fact based on the authority of scientists and the scientific method.