“Put your scientific hats on, the NSF is here”
Voilà qui va plaire à Antoine :
… fMRI seems more like real science than many of the other things that psychologists are up to. It has all the trappings of work with great lab-cred: big, expensive, and potentially dangerous machines, hospitals and medical centers, and a lot of people in white coats. In a recent study, Deena Skolnick, a graduate student at Yale, asked her subjects to judge different explanations of a psychological phenomenon. Some of these explanations were crafted to be awful. And people were good at noticing that they were awful—unless Skolnick inserted a few sentences of neuroscience. These were entirely irrelevant, basically stating that the phenomenon occurred in a certain part of the brain. But they did the trick: For both the novices and the experts (cognitive neuroscientists in the Yale psychology department), the presence of a bit of apparently-hard science turned bad explanations into satisfactory ones.
Aperçu chez Orbital Teapot.
3 Comments
→



Je pense qu’il faudrait effectuer des mesures pour voir quelles parties du cerveau sont stimulées lorsqu’on lit qu’une partie du cerveau a été stimulée. On trouvera certainement l’explication de ce phénomène ;)
Ça doit être juste à côté de la partie du cerveau consacrée à la gestion des signaux visuels interprétables sous la forme de Penelope Cruz. Ce qui explique tout.
Je me permets aussi de renvoyer à un billet que j’avais publié sur un sujet approchant.