Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.
Psychol Sci. 2018 Jan;29(1):121-130. doi: 10.1177/0956797617722609. Epub 2017 Nov 2.
Can science explain romantic love, morality, and religious belief? We documented intuitive beliefs about the limits of science in explaining the human mind. We considered both epistemic evaluations (concerning whether science could possibly fully explain a given psychological phenomenon) and nonepistemic judgments (concerning whether scientific explanations for a given phenomenon would generate discomfort), and we identified factors that characterize phenomena judged to fall beyond the scope of science. Across six studies, we found that participants were more likely to judge scientific explanations for psychological phenomena to be impossible and uncomfortable when, among other factors, they support first-person, introspective access (e.g., feeling empathetic as opposed to reaching for objects), contribute to making humans exceptional (e.g., appreciating music as opposed to forgetfulness), and involve conscious will (e.g., acting immorally as opposed to having headaches). These judgments about the scope of science have implications for science education, policy, and the public reception of psychological science.
科学能否解释浪漫爱情、道德和宗教信仰？我们记录了人们对科学解释人类心理的局限性的直观信念。我们考虑了认知评价（关于科学是否有可能完全解释给定的心理现象）和非认知判断（关于给定现象的科学解释是否会引起不适），并确定了将现象判断为超出科学范围的特征因素。在六项研究中，我们发现，当参与者支持第一人称、内省式的认知方式（例如，感到同理心而不是伸手去拿东西）、使人类变得特殊（例如，欣赏音乐而不是健忘）以及涉及有意识的意志（例如，不道德地行事而不是头痛）等因素时，他们更有可能判断科学对心理现象的解释是不可能的和不舒服的。这些关于科学范围的判断对科学教育、政策和公众对心理科学的接受度都有影响。
