The Brain Makes It Better

i-3f84c8f41ed6edb7f0ded85a99e05fb7-prettybrain.JPGAbout a year ago, there was an article in Seed Magazine titled "Seduced by the Flickering Lights of the Brain," in which Paul Bloom argued that people are too easily seduced by neuroscience, believing that it made for good science, even when it doesn't. At the end of the article, Bloom mentioned a then unpublished study in which participants were more impressed with bad scientific explanations if they contained a bit of irrelevant neuroscience. Well, now the study, which is by Weisberg and a bunch of other people (apparently to write a paper about neuroscience, you have to have as many authors as an actual neurososcience paper would) is in press. There are three experiments instead of just the one, and it turns out that even neuroscience students are seduced by irrelevant neuroscience, though PhD neuroscientists aren't (if you're ever wondering what the value of a PhD is, there ya have it). Here's the abstract:

Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation. We tested this hypothesis by giving naïve adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good explanation vs. bad explanation) x 2 (without neuroscience vs. with neuroscience) design. Crucially, the neuroscience information was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as confirmed by the expert subjects. Subjects in all three groups judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. But subjects in the two non-expert groups additionally judged that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience information were more satisfying than explanations without. The neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on non-experts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.

You can read the whole thing here. Mark Liberman over at Language Log has already written the definitive blog discussion of the study, so if you don't want to read the whole paper, just head over there to read his post.

More like this

Reductionism is seductive, especially when it comes attached with a nifty sounding brain region: Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological…
Psychologists often complain that neuroscientists get a disproportionate share of the glory when the mainstream media reports on their studies. It seems to some that an important new psychology study is often neglected or ignored entirely, while neuroscience studies of similar importance are hailed…
Cognitive Daily has been chosen to respond to the first question in a newly revised feature on ScienceBlogs: Ask a ScienceBlogger. Readers can submit questions, and they'll be answered by an expert in the field of inquiry (even though it's posted under Dave's name, Dave and Greta worked together on…
Dave over at Cognitive Daily beat me to this (curse you, Dave!), but I wanted to point everyone to an article in Seed Magazine by Paul Bloom, titled "Seduced by the Flickering Lights of the Brain." If you can't tell from the title, the article is on the lure of imaging studies, and the sense that…

Normally I'm suspicious of survey tests (probably because I don't understand the methodology, but cf. the study on whether conservatives are less "creative") -- but this sounds like something you actually *can* test with a survey.

By Alex Leibowitz (not verified) on 09 Jun 2007 #permalink