Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning.

“However, to prevent superficial discussions driven by the illusion of explanatory depth provided by fMRI scans (Brown & Murphy, 2009; Rhodes, Rodriguez, & Shah, 2014), academic, legal, and ethical communities should consider the validity of the paradigms, including the various threats to validity,…”

“In addition, Rhodes et al. (2014) found that stimuli with neuroscience information were rated more highly than length-matched stimuli without neuro-science information.”

“Additionally, when the participants have limited knowledge of the scientific method being reported in what they read, the neuroscience bias of the credibility they award to the research is bigger (Rhodes et al. 2014).”

“Even for people who learned ’correlation is not causation’ with classroom examples, it could still be challenging to apply their learning to new contexts [47, 39].”

“Although recent work has provided experimental evidence for these strategies as tools of persuasion (103, 104), their dangerous efficacy has been clear since the days of Pelmanism over a century ago.”

“However, in contrast to the literature on the effects of neuroimages, the literature on the seductive allure of textual neuroscience explanations (Weisberg et al., 2008, 2015; Michael et al., 2013; Rhodes et al., 2014; Scurich and Shniderman, 2014; Fernandez-Duque et al., 2015; Rhodes, 2015) has so far evidenced a mor…”

“Irrelevant neuroscience information can make scientific explanations and articles appear more satisfying, stronger, and more convincing [41, 55].”

“It is consistent with prior studies of the SANE effect (Rhodes et al., 2014; Scurich&Shniderman, 2014) andof scientific reasoningmore generally (Greenhoot et al., 2004), which find that people evaluate scientific arguments more positively when the conclusions are consistent with their prior beliefs.”

“…et al., 2016), irrelevant neuroscience (Fernandez-Duque, Evans, Colton, & Hodges, 2015; Hopkins, Weisberg, & Taylor, 2016; McCabe & Castel, 2008; Rhodes et al., 2014; Rhodes & Shah, 2016a; Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008), irrelevant mathematical equations (Eriksson, 2012),…”

“When the narrative supports those beliefs, people might be less critical in their evaluation, and thus, less likely to detect its logical flaws (Rhodes et al., 2014).”

“The SANE effect persists even after controlling for possible confounds such as length of the neuroscience explanation, and the use of jargon (Rhodes et al., 2014; Weisberg et al., 2015).”

“(2008) found that people were more likely to accept bad psychological explanations when irrelevant neuroscience was included (Weisberg et al., 2008; see also Beck (2010); Fernandez-Duque et al., 2015; Rhodes et al., 2014; Weisberg et al., 2015; Hopkins et al., 2016; Im et al., 2017).”

“…suggests that people incorporate neuroscience research into existing attitudes (Hook & Farah, 2013; Pickersgill et al., 2015; Zambo & Zambo, 2011); other research shows that “individual factors may influence how, or even whether, neuroscience information affects judgments” (Rhodes et al., 2014).”

“The popularization of research on brain activity has been underlined by previous research — arguing that the underlying mechanisms of a behavioural phenomenon are too reductionist and produce pseudo-insights from neuroscience (Grant 2015; Rhodes et al. 2014).”

“In fact, participants underestimated the quality of their explanations across conditions (although to varying degrees; see Supplementary Analyses and Supplementary Table 29).”

“The seductive allure effect of neuroscientific explanations has been replicated in several studies since (Fernandez-Duque et al., 2015; Minahan & Siedlecki, 2016; Rhodes et al., 2014;Weisberg et al., 2015; Hopkins et al., 2016; see also Buchman et al., 2013).”

“As a result, viewers may not understand the visualization’s intended message (Newell et al., 2016) and may even discredit the data if it seems surprising or inconsistent with their prior beliefs (Lord et al., 1979; Rhodes et al., 2014; Shah et al., 2017).”

“Email: lindsaymorgan@cmail.carleton.ca found that the mere inclusion of neuroscientific terminology, specifically references to the brain, makes the description of psychological phenomena more satisfying (Rhodes et al., 2014; Weisberg et al., 2008, 2015).”

“…tim e, th ey w er e pa ir ed w ith im po rt an t ev en ts . identified a preference for neuroscience explanations (Fernandez-Duque et al., 2015; Rhodes et al., 2014; Weisberg et al., 2015), one might compare preferences for vernacular descriptions and neuroscience descriptions of psychological…”

“What’s more, literature suggests consumers are not alone in being apt to believe dubious claims couched in neuroscientific terms (Beyerstein, 1990 ; McCabe & Castel, 2008; Rhodes et al., 2014 ).”

“While some studies have failed to replicate some of these results (e.g., Gruber and Dickerson, 2012; Hook and Farah, 2013b; Michael et al., 2013), others continue to point to the seductive allure of neuroscience information (Rhodes et al., 2014; Weisberg et al., 2015).”

“A similar reduction in the number of stimuli from the original paper was carried out in Rhodes et al. (2014) and Weisberg et al. (2015), although using different criteria and resulting in the selection of different items.”

“…views of the candidates they support (Alter et al. 2010), why natural phenomena like rainbows occur (Rozenblit and Keil 2002), and why, after being exposed to some neuroscientific information, people think they understand scientific phenomena more deeply than they really do (Rhodes et al. 2014).”

“…have emphasized neuroscientific reductionism, arguing that the oversimplification of complex psychological phenomena with physicalistic explanations referring to the brain might be the key factor to create this illusion of plausibility (Baker et al., 2017; Im et al., 2017; Rhodes et al., 2014).”

“Similarly, scientific studies are more persuasive to lay people when they include irrelevant neuroscience [51].”

“…(Krakauer, Ghazanfar, Gomez-Marin, MacIver, & Poeppel, 2017)。但有趣的是, 神经科学的结果往往以非常 生动的方式呈现(如彩色的大脑图像), 加之神经 科学的解释比行为科学的解释更加“生物”和“还 原”, 这使得神经科学在其他科学领域以及大众 媒体中得到广泛的传播并且产生重要的影响。在 这种情况下, 研究者们开始关注一个问题：没有 学习过神经科学相关知识的个体, 是否能够正确 解读诸神经科学的结果(如涉及到神经系统的图 像或文字信息)？这个问题的一个极端形式是：即 便神经科学信息与结论并不相关时,…”