5 ms·

Sure, ideology impacts formal reasoning, but if you look at the examples given the participants have good reason to reject the conclusions of formal logic that

Sure, ideology impacts formal reasoning, but if you look at the examples given the participants have good reason to reject the conclusions of formal logic that is based on terrible premises. Despite the result of a simple sequence of sentences divorced from reality, cigarettes really are bad for you and salads are good (depending on their contents). In study 1) participants might disagree with dangerous drugs being banned, and they disagree that marijuana is dangerous. In 2) premise 1 seems relatively straightforward, then premise 2 is a highly ideological belief (as is the point of the study). I don't think this is very revealing. When you add 1+2 and get 68445788, you are suprised by the conclusion and check your work. People responding to this aren't dumb, they just aren't playing along with what they regard as faulty reasoning. Basically, they are likely saying I know what the researcher wants me to say, but this is wrong and I won't go along with it.

blakejustblake 8y ago
What you're saying and the conclusions of the study are one in the same. Though I would disagree that their questions were like presenting 1+2=68445788. I would suggest they're more like 1 is 32119592 and 2 is 36326196 thus 1+2=68445788. 1 and 2 are not those numbers, but to be premised such a way formally the results of the logic check out. Regardless of whether it's revealing or not it's a good thing to work towards establishing these sorts of conclusions through studies so that someday we can hope to have fewer terrible premises.
scythe 8y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the general decrease in trust in society affects psychology research: http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-news-in-2019-low-trust-societies-the-death-of-consensus-and-your-own-lying-eyes/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-ne... The Milgram experiment is the most prominent example which might not be possible today because it depends on participants' willingness to obey scientists. The Milgram effect is still real, but it has become harder to measure. So in this case, when participants are asked to reason based on premises they don't agree with, they might, as you've suggested, refuse. They might interpret the researchers' intent as nefarious, e.g. "if I agree this syllogism is valid the researcher will report that I support the conclusion". This line of thinking is of course absurd, but it comes close to what I've observed that some people believe about scientists.
- fhfjgkvjvj 8y ago
  Is it? Scientists and PR firms get funded by big donors. Professional scientists are typically honest, but which studies get funded are picked by people that aren't necessarily. The public sort of understands that things generally are arrayed against them though they can't necessarily explain why mechanistically. In this case, it might be even simpler than that. It might be that regardless of what they believe about scientists and the formal logic of their assignment, they just don't like being forced to say things they despise. This could be seen as noble though its not exactly a plus for debating.

blakejustblake 8y ago

What you're saying and the conclusions of the study are one in the same. Though I would disagree that their questions were like presenting 1+2=68445788. I would suggest they're more like 1 is 32119592 and 2 is 36326196 thus 1+2=68445788. 1 and 2 are not those numbers, but to be premised such a way formally the results of the logic check out. Regardless of whether it's revealing or not it's a good thing to work towards establishing these sorts of conclusions through studies so that someday we can hope to have fewer terrible premises.

scythe 8y ago

Sometimes I wonder if the general decrease in trust in society affects psychology research: http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-news-in-2019-low-trust-societies-the-death-of-consensus-and-your-own-lying-eyes/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-ne... The Milgram experiment is the most prominent example which might not be possible today because it depends on participants' willingness to obey scientists. The Milgram effect is still real, but it has become harder to measure. So in this case, when participants are asked to reason based on premises they don't agree with, they might, as you've suggested, refuse. They might interpret the researchers' intent as nefarious, e.g. "if I agree this syllogism is valid the researcher will report that I support the conclusion". This line of thinking is of course absurd, but it comes close to what I've observed that some people believe about scientists.

fhfjgkvjvj 8y ago
Is it? Scientists and PR firms get funded by big donors. Professional scientists are typically honest, but which studies get funded are picked by people that aren't necessarily. The public sort of understands that things generally are arrayed against them though they can't necessarily explain why mechanistically. In this case, it might be even simpler than that. It might be that regardless of what they believe about scientists and the formal logic of their assignment, they just don't like being forced to say things they despise. This could be seen as noble though its not exactly a plus for debating.