Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

[blike]

Just wondering if anyone caught this paper published last week in Science. See here for a modified version. It's very interesting, check it out.

 

"Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed "promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations..."

 

These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy.

 

Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg, 2007, “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” Science, 316(5827), 996-997, 18 May 2007

[Glider]

That's interesting. It would suggest then that some people (e.g. proponents of creationism) are subject to a kind of psychological neoteny.

 

It gives a new slant to "Suffer the little children to come unto me", doesn't it? It would suggest that those who are thinking within the child-like framework of the 'intuitive beliefs' of purposeful design of things are more likely to 'go to Him' as 'He' offers a view on existence more sympathetic to their own cognitive framework. It would explain a lot.

[the tree]

Something a bit more than armchair psychology to look at creationism with, interesting.

 

I am kind of worried by

For instance, 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain.

[swansont]

Something a bit more than armchair psychology to look at creationism with, interesting.

 

I am kind of worried by

 

For instance, 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain.

 

 

 

Then you should perhaps be very worried by Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine. Scary. Psychological neotony may be too kind a phrase. I can sort of understand how one can take an ideology and contort a view of reality so extremely, because one has constructed all reality (not just the spiritual reality) on the basis of something other than critical observation of the world around us.

[swansont]

That's interesting. It would suggest then that some people (e.g. proponents of creationism) are subject to a kind of psychological neoteny.

 

It gives a new slant to "Suffer the little children to come unto me", doesn't it? It would suggest that those who are thinking within the child-like framework of the 'intuitive beliefs' of purposeful design of things are more likely to 'go to Him' as 'He' offers a view on existence more sympathetic to their own cognitive framework. It would explain a lot.

 

It has been said before that religion, not science, promises an answer to everything. And "the supreme being did it" is a pretty easy answer to give and also to accept, as long as you don't question it very much.

[YT2095]

what, are you trying to tell me it Doesn`t!?

I`m only kidding, we Know that isn`t the case coz` the Earth is Flat!

 

one thing`s for Certain though, this will NOT happen to my daughter!

she will be taught the Truth right from the very start.

she will not be taught Religion, she will be taught OF it and About it only.

 

I think there`s plenty enough out there to fear without Adding mythology to it like Hell-Fire and the Devil etc...

[Martin]

Just wondering if anyone caught this paper published last week in Science. See here for a modified version. It's very interesting, check it out.

...

 

I saw the abstract when it came out earlier this month. Did not get the full text of the paper. Worrisome.

The abstract had the words you quoted, which are definitely cause for concern.

===quote from Science 18 May, Bloom and===

These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy.

===endquote===

[Martin]

Bloom and Weisberg

(I had trouble editing the previous post. Freezeup as soon as I clicked the button to edit. So I will continue with a second post.)

 

I wanted to say it seems like a serious problem and maybe we should try to think of some solutions.

 

"This resistance will persist through adulthood..., and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is ...championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy."

 

One thinks of the pastor and sundayschool teacher at the church or some particularly respected figure at one's school. Apparently these people are able to damage children and lame their ability to understand certain models of the natural world later in life.

 

Often these people are very nice---kind loving and definitely trustworthy and reliable in ways that a child can appreciate. Oh my. It looks like quite a thorny problem!

[YT2095]

good Parenting and Honesty based upon known FACTS is all that`s needed.

nothing Fancy.

and let Them ask the questions, don`t "Force feed" them stuff, but be prepared to answer them and explain in ways they WILL understand.

[imp]

Something a bit more than armchair psychology to look at creationism with, interesting.

I am kind of worried by

 

I distinctly remember, in 5th. grade, our Science text claimed the moon does NOT rotate on an axis, like the earth. It also pointed out that the same "face" of the moon is always seen from the Earth, while the moon orbits around the Earth.

 

I reasoned the moon MUST rotate in place, in order for the same view to be at all times present. This got me in trouble with the teacher, and others, who were so rigidly schooled they could not "see" the obvious.

[imp]

good Parenting and Honesty based upon known FACTS is all that`s needed.

nothing Fancy.

and let Them ask the questions, don`t "Force feed" them stuff, but be prepared to answer them and explain in ways they WILL understand.

 

Your child is fortunate, indeed, though she may not know it. What a shame that during my own endeavors and interactions with people over the past many decades, I have only rarely encountered individuals with the foresight you possess. imp

[Glider]

Then you should perhaps be very worried by Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine. Scary. Psychological neotony may be too kind a phrase.

Perhaps, but that's because it's an observation, not a value judgement. Psychological neoteny is what it appears to be, not what I feel about it, which is an entirely different thing. What I feel about it is that it is potentially dangerous and needs to be opposed at every instance. This is what education was supposed to be for. I believe we should forget the old "Respect people's beliefs" chestnut. We might respect their right to believe it, but I don't think you can ask a reasonable and logical person to respect the unreasonable and illogical.

 

It has been said before that religion, not science, promises an answer to everything. And "the supreme being did it" is a pretty easy answer to give and also to accept, as long as you don't question it very much.

That's true. I think psychological neoteny involves (or results in) a number of elements as well as the main factor of the intuitive belief framework. I think it includes lazyness (unwillingness to critically evaluate the world or one's own beliefs), ignorance (being unaware of the current understanding of the reality of things), elitism (the need to belong to a group that is more 'right' and 'better' than others), fear (of one's own mortality and the idea of oblivion), superstition (misattribution of causal relationships) and external locus of control (the belief that events and features of one's own immediate environment are determined by luck, fate or powerful others).

 

Moreover, the factors I listed would account intuitively for an individual being more willing to accept the easy answer without question (lazyness and superstition), particularly if that answer offers them redemption and a way of avoiding their own mortality in some way (fear), and if the individual is unaware of the illogical and unreasonable nature of that answer (ignorance) and if it also means joining a particular group who are 'in the know' and are 'saved' (elitism), and if it's delivered by a respected (powerful) other (external LOC).

 

[EDIT]I just noticed, by this argument, religiosity would appear to be correlated with the weaknesses of humanity. Hmm. That fits. I may be entirely wrong, but it would support my 'Religion-is-the-worst-crime-against-humanity-ever-perpetrated' hypothesis.[/EDIT]

[MolotovCocktail]

Then you should perhaps be very worried by Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine. Scary....

 

I did not think that people that blissfully ignorant and delusional actually existed. I guess this is proof that an all-powerful, all-merciful god does not exist:-p.

 

I'm also thinking that religion gives people a sense of security, so they may also be more resistant to science simply because science doesn't guarantee anything. Also, religion provides a convenient way to place blame on things whenever something goes wrong (e.g. Satan).