Psychologists puzzled by Humanity’s hardwire

Interesting article on Al Mohler’s blog. Surprised? This time Mohler analyzes a paper written by psychologists who claim that the difficulties scientists are having in selling evolutionary biology to the majority of the public has to do with how we are mentally hardwired. He quotes a portion of the paper.

The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as “blank slates.” Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a “naïve physics”) and the social world (a “naïve psychology”). Babies know that objects are solid, that they persist over time even when they are out of sight, that they fall to the ground if unsupported, and that they do not move unless acted upon. They also understand that people move autonomously in response to social and physical events, that they act and react in accord with their goals, and that they respond with appropriate emotions to different situations.

These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. But these intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is “not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach.”

These psychologists go on to lay the blame at the feet of a public who refuses to trust scientists more than any other of the social institutions - even religious.

The community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate, that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world.

I love what Mohler says in response to this accusation.

So we are supposed to see modern science as holding “a legitimate claim to trustworthiness” that other authorities -- including religious authorities -- lack. In the end, they propose that scientists combat resistance to science by convincing the public that scientists are worthy of trust.

I am not a scientist, but I would suggest that this falls short of a winning argument. The attorney who asks a jury, “What are you going to believe, my argument or what you see with your own eyes?,” has a fool for a client.

A fool indeed.