Non‐Scientific Criteria for Belief Sustain Counter‐Scientific Beliefs

Abstract

Why is evolutionary theory controversial among members of the American public? We propose a novel explanation: allegiance to different criteria for belief. In one interview study, two online surveys, and one nationally representative phone poll, we found that evolutionists and creationists take different justifications for belief as legitimate. Those who accept evolution emphasize empirical evidence and scientific consensus. Creationists emphasize not only the Bible and religious authority, but also knowledge of the heart. These criteria for belief remain predictive of views about evolution even when taking into account other related factors like religion, political affiliation, and education. Each view is supported by its own internally specified criteria for what constitutes a justified belief. Changing minds may thus require changing epistemic norms.

“Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19

“…Thus, our results suggest not only that trust in Didier Raoult is related to a more intuitive cognitive style, but that it is embedded in a wider web of beliefs traditionally associated with intuitive cognitive style: beliefs not only about politics (conspiracy) or medecine (pseudo-medicine), but also epistemological beliefs about how beliefs should be formed and whether intuition should be trusted over evidence, and personal experience over scientific methods. (For recent works stressing the importance of epistemic beliefs in the explanation of irrational beliefs, see: Garrett & Weeks, 2017;Metz, Weisberg & Weisberg, 2018;Pennycook, Cheyne, Koehler & Fugelsang, 2020).…”

Education for a “Post-Truth” World: New Directions for Research and Practice

“…People often believe based on personal opinion or what “feels true in the heart” rather than based on reasoning from data and evidence (Metz et al, 2018; Prado, 2018). This tendency may be augmented by current media (Illouz, 2019; Kavanagh & Rich, 2018): The massive flow of information, large parts of which are inaccurate or indifferent to accuracy, may erode the sense that it is worthwhile or possible to distinguish fact from opinion and fiction (Lewandowsky et al, 2017).…”

Collectively jumping to conclusions: Social information amplifies the tendency to gather insufficient data.

“…It would be interesting to see how far this possibility extends. For instance, people who endorse evolution are more likely to justify their beliefs with reference to evidence, whereas people who deny evolution are more likely to justify their beliefs based on what they feel to be 'true in their heart' (Metz et al, 2018). Naturally, this example is confounded with religious factors, and yet that does not preclude the possibility that part of the explanation may be a socially learned disregard for empirical evidence, as religious belief is itself correlated with intuitive cognitive style (Pennycook, Ross, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2016).…”

“…There is qualitative evidence (Metz, Weisberg, & Weisberg, 2018) and evidence from computational modeling (Druckman & McGrath, 2019) suggesting that this pathway is plausible. One specific mechanism suggested by such research is that people vary in their estimation of the value of relevant evidence, and this variation may depend on social factors.…”