Dec 31 2008
An Easier Truth
Is it just me, or does an article title such as Beauty Is Truth In Mathematical Intuition: First Empirical Evidence, wave red flags in your mind?
Empirical evidence for mathematic intuitions containing a beautiful truth? Egads. Good luck delivering on that. Did the article? No.
The researchers behind the conclusion reviewed the literature prior to conducting their own study (good — but elementary, really) and they found
. . . that the common experience underlying both perceived beauty and judged truth is processing fluency, which is the experienced ease with which mental content is processed. Indeed, stimuli processed with greater ease elicit more positive affect and statements that participants can read more easily are more likely to be judged as being true.
And their new “empirical evidence” supported this.
So by beauty they really meant processing ease. Wouldn’t “Ease is Truth,” or even “Pleasure is Truth,” have been more accurate? Oh, wait, but in that case the writer(s) of the article wouldn’t have been able to resort to lazy, cliché-filled prose.
The finding did get me thinking, however. Do more complex solutions to questions cause a sort of cognitive discomfort? Is that why many religious folk find evolutionary theory so ugly? In order to educate people about the solid merit of an alternate explanation to their very simply and easy “god done it,” should we first open their eyes to the true complexity of the raw data? Should we also highlight the glaring faults in their own flaccid position? Would evolutionary theory then be more likely to be welcomed as something strong and reliable?
[...] Bernardin presents An Easier Truth posted at the evolving [...]
perhaps a better title would be “ease is beauty is truth” since they seem to be equating the three.
and, of course complex solutions create cognitive discomfort. any new information that disrupts a schema causes discomfort. but don’t confuse complexity with truth. that’s as silly as equating ease with truth.
i think creationsists view the theory of evolution as ugly for the same reasons that evolutionists view the theory of creation as ugly — it just doesn’t fit in with the schema they have set up. in my opinion it would seem that both theories require a measure of faith and have little “raw data” that can be consistently shown/proven. (i don’t count one species adapting within itself to its environment as evolution. no galapagos finch for me. i want to see a fish become a dog.)
and, highlighting glaring faults rarely results in changed minds. . .it usually brings out anger and further closing. the same reaction you’d probably have to a creationist pointing out the glaring deficiencies in evolutionary theory.
Some good points. Particularly the “fit in with schema” bit.
While I don’t confuse complexity with truth, I recognize that evolutionary theory is more complex than the religious alternatives. As is germ theory more complex than ideas of spiritual uncleanliness and/or demonization, etc.
Personally, I don’t see “the theory of creation” as ugly. I see it as ludicrously simplistic and unsupported by real-world data.
And, by the way, just how is “the theory of creation” a theory in the sense of the word that evolution is a theory?
Strong theories allow for testable predictions as well as disclosing the mechanisms responsible for some class of phenomena. Evolutionary theory discloses that organisms leave multiple offspring with differing traits that are then “selected for” via sex and survival, resulting in genetic drift and the appearance of new forms (quickly worded in a way that reflects my non-specialist understanding). All of these steps/elements have been tested and have passed. They are supported by mountains of evidence. If you didn’t know that, your education is incomplete.
What is the nitty-gritty of “the theory of creation”? Is there any? If not, it isn’t a theory.
Expecting to see a fish to become a dog as a requirement to believe in evolution is akin asking to see a mountain rise out of the earth and erupt as a volcano before you are willing to accept the entire field of geology.
Lastly, how do you know that “highlighting glaring faults rarely results in changed minds. . .it usually brings out anger and further closing”? It may. But I’m not so sure about that. I imagine there are many different types of mind, if you will, with differing particulars of their beliefs and differing susceptibility to new and contrasting information. And maybe not immediately.