← all facts
judgment
You judge an explanation as 'correct' if it includes neuroscience data.
The seductive allure of neuroscience makes people believe that explanations are logically sound, even when they contain completely irrelevant brain science.
Including mentions of brain regions or neural activity in a weak argument causes people to view that argument as much more credible. Your brain values the authoritative tone of scientific terminology, even when it adds no actual explanatory power. You are susceptible to the aesthetic of science rather than the rigor.
The mention of the brain can trick you into accepting an error.
Where this comes from
- Study
- Weisberg et al., 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- What the check found
- The citation and the interpretation of the 'seductive allure' effect in Weisberg et al. (2008) are accurate to the source material.
- Confidence
- Well replicated
Related
One of these every day, and every one names the study it came from. When a finding is contested, it says so.