Why we so dumb, scientifickle-like

Bloom and Weisberg believe that many ideas in science seem counter-intuitive or "unnatural" to people. At the same time, we also accept many of science's seemingly counter-intuitive propositions (solid objects, for instance, are actually composed of tiny molecules). The difference, they argue, lies with how this knowledge is presented or learned, whether it is "assumed" or "asserted." Their ideas make a great deal of sense when I put them up against my memories of learning science from my father (a chemical engineer) and then encountering very different, commonly accepted ideas from classmates (who were not stupid):

"Some culture-specific information is not associated with any particular source. It is 'common knowledge.' As such, learning of this type of information generally bypasses critical analysis. A prototypical example is that of word meanings. Everyone uses the word 'dog' to refer to dogs, so children easily learn that this is what they are called. Other examples include belief in germs and electricity. Their existence is generally assumed in day-to-day conversation and is not marked as uncertain; nobody says that they 'believe in electricity.' Hence even children and adults with little scientific background believe that these invisible entities really exist, a topic explored in detail by Paul Harris and his colleagues.

"Science is not special here. Geographic information and historical information is also typically assumed, which is how an American child comes to believe that there is a faraway place called Africa and that there was a man who lived long ago named Abraham Lincoln. And, in some cultures, certain religious beliefs can be assumed as well. For instance, if the existence of supernatural entities like gods, karma, and ancestor spirits is never questioned by adults in the community, the existence of such entities will be unquestioningly accepted by children.

"Other information, however, is explicitly asserted. Such information is associated with certain sources. A child might note that science teachers make surprising claims about the origin of human beings, for instance, while their parents do not. Furthermore, the tentative status of this information is sometimes explicitly marked; people will assert that they 'believe in evolution.'

"When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role of mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individual will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears. This is the case for most scientific beliefs."

A thought-provoking article.