"Intuitive ways of thinking are deeply embedded in our cognitive systems, and they're useful in everyday contexts," says Coley. "But they are not appropriate for explaining scientific phenomena.
Oh boy. That should really hurt the 'intuition crowd' on here.
Learn science, people. Science is not a list of facts. It's a way of structured thinking geared towards removing bias. And intuition is - when you get right down to it - nothing BUT bias.
Anthropocentric thinking is rife at all levels and in all disciplines. Not really surprising since it is part of the genetic and cultural legacy with which we are all burdened. It is aided and abetted by the the vagaries of language.
The widespread use of nebulous terms such as "intelligence" in purportedly scientific discussions is an example.
Such issues are frequently dismissed as "merely semantic" but it is semantics which lie at the heart of the issue and therein lies the educational target which needs to be addressed.
To most there is little difference in meaning between "The Zebra developed stripes to provide protection" and "The Zebra has stripes which provide protection" The problem, at heart, is linguistic, and it is the ability to reason in natural language which needs to be instilled.
Also to learn to step outside our anthropocentric viewpoints. An underlying message of my last book "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill"
1)troll through old school books from around the time your sample group would have been in those perspective grades for references that are outdated, colloquial, or analogy and form a list. 2) present these things to that group 3) conclude that not everybody thoroughly, regularly, rechecks everything they've ever been told personally caveats: -if it 'makes sense' - doesn't actively harm the persons predictive capability.
Seriously... 99% of people believe at least one thing that doesn't match up with fact. Yeah. duh?.. I really hope there's some metadata here to exploit or this guy was doing this out of personal interest- not being financed.
If this is how the question is presented then many students will assume that it is a poorly framed question and correct in their own minds before answering.
This is extremely common in their normal everyday life as they interact with biologically naive individuals.
For instance: "Do different cells have different DNA?" "Do you mean 'do different species of cell have different DNA?'. The answer is yes." (correct) or "Do you mean 'do various cell types in an organism have different DNA'. The answer is No" (correct).
To prevent this common behaviour the questions need to be more specific, such as asking if the question is literally true. If the students know that the question is asked by a cognitive scientist then they will be far more likely to assume that the question is naive and incorrectly framed, then go ahead and correct in their minds before answering the corrected version.
Is cell type differentiation nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated via the fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction in all living genera?
The question incorporates what is currently known to serious scientists about two epigenetic traps. 1) the sun's biological energy is trapped on contract with water, which leads to the de novo creation of amino acids. 2) amino acid substitutions are fixed in the organized genomes via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on the de novo creation of receptors in the cell wall, which enable nutrient uptake.
The two epigenetic traps help to link what students don't know about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms. Many theorists do not want their students to know more than the theorists learned because the theorists accepted what was taught to them by other biologically uninformed theorists.
antialias_physorg
Jul 8, 2015Oh boy. That should really hurt the 'intuition crowd' on here.
Learn science, people. Science is not a list of facts. It's a way of structured thinking geared towards removing bias. And intuition is - when you get right down to it - nothing BUT bias.