Occasionally people may attempt to judge whether a question can be answered today, or if not, if it can be answered in the future. For example, a person may consider whether enough is known about the dangers of living close to a nuclear plant, or to a major electricity cable, for them to be willing to do so, and state-authorities may consider whether questions about the dangers of new technologies have been answered, or in a reasonable future can be, for them to be willing to invest money in research aiming develop such technologies. A total of 476 participants, for each of 22 knowledge questions, either judged whether it was answerable today (current answerability), or judged when it could be answered (future answerability). The knowledge questions varied with respect to the expected consensus concerning their answerability: consensus questions (high expected consensus), non-consensus questions (lower expected consensus), and illusion questions (formulated to appear answerable, but with crucial information absent). The questions' judged answerability level on the two scales was highly correlated. For both scales, consensus questions were rated more answerable than the non-consensus questions, with illusion questions falling in-between. The result for the illusion questions indicates that a feeling of answerability can be created even when it is unlikely that somebody can come up with an answer. The results also showed that individual difference variables influenced the answerability judgments. Higher levels of belief in certainty of knowledge, mankind's knowledge, and mankind's efficacy were related to judging the non-consensus questions as more answerable. Participants rating the illusion questions as answerable rated the other answerability questions as more, or equally, answerable compared to the other participants and showed tendencies to prefer a combination of more epistemic default processing and less intellectual processing.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710744 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02060 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
We use sensory feedback to form our perception, and control our movements and forces (actions). There is an ongoing debate about the relation between perception and action, with evidence in both directions. For example, there are cases in which perceptual illusions affect action signals and cases where they do not.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDisability, digital technologies and the ambivalent allure of posthumanist/transhumanist futures.
Med Humanit
November 2024
ERG, Stockholms Universitet, Stockholm, Sweden
Technologies, both simple and sophisticated, have always played a major role in the negotiation of a range of disabilities that are assumed to impede the expression of autonomous selfhood. Whether deployed as mechanical aides to ideally normalise physical differences, as organic-and often internal-supplements to bolster the performance of body and mind, or as digital enhancements that override the supposed shortcomings of neurodiversity, the widely accepted claim is that such technologies have a clear therapeutic value. It conjures the illusion of an unproblematised sequence of more complex technologies leading to increasingly enhanced function and the advent of superior selfhood.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIllusion of control or passive superstition? A comparison of two explanations for irrational gambling beliefs.
Psychol Addict Behav
November 2024
School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol.
Objective: The "illusion of control" is a dominant cognitive illusion in disordered gambling, but its role in shaping irrational gambling beliefs has been questioned by recent null experimental findings. Here, we aimed to test this recent work, in a preregistered Bayesian framework, by additionally correlating the dependent variable (nonuniform probabilistic beliefs) with self-reported gambling behavior and by exploring "passive superstition" as an alternative driver of these irrational gambling beliefs.
Method: A between-participants online experiment involving three boxes, one of which a $1 prize was randomly assigned to ( = 3,064; 49.
Plant disease recognition datasets in the age of deep learning: challenges and opportunities.
Front Plant Sci
September 2024
Department of Computer Engineering, Mokpo National University, Mokpo, Republic of Korea.
Although plant disease recognition has witnessed a significant improvement with deep learning in recent years, a common observation is that current deep learning methods with decent performance tend to suffer in real-world applications. We argue that this illusion essentially comes from the fact that current plant disease recognition datasets cater to deep learning methods and are far from real scenarios. Mitigating this illusion fundamentally requires an interdisciplinary perspective from both plant disease and deep learning, and a core question arises.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMagic for the blind: are auditory tricks impossible?
Trends Cogn Sci
November 2024
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Many magic tricks rely solely on vision, but there are few, if any, that rely on auditory perception alone. Here, we question why this is so and argue that research focusing on this issue could provide deeper theoretical insights into the similarities and differences between our senses.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!