The Disconnect Between Scientific Knowledge and Lived Experience: An Evolutionary Perspective

Many individuals find themselves grappling with an interesting and often uncomfortable disparity between the scientific knowledge they possess and their lived experiences. This phenomenon raises important questions about how our brains process information and weigh different sources of truth. Let’s delve into the reasons behind this disconnect, using an evolutionary lens to understand the mechanics at play.

Why Our Brains Are Biased Toward Fitness Over Truth

The reason for this disconnect lies in the evolutionary history of the human brain. Our brains did not evolve to recognize an absolute form of “truth” but rather to bias us towards what is beneficial for our survival. This crucial distinction is fundamental to understanding how our perceptions and experiences can diverge from objective reality.

Biased Processing for Survival

Denial: An unconscious mental process that helps maintain stability and peace. For instance, if your spouse is cheating, your brain might deny this information to prevent you from being distracted from essential survival tasks, such as gathering food or avoiding predators. Xenophobia: A fear of people who look different. Historically, in harsh living conditions and limited resources, it was safer to assume that strangers were dangerous. This bias helps prioritize survival over factual accuracy.

These biases are not inherently negative but rather evolutionary adaptations meant to ensure our survival. Denial, for example, can protect you from emotional distress that might hinder your ability to perform essential tasks. Xenophobia can help ensure your tribe remains safe from outsiders with potentially harmful intentions.

Consequences of Overreliance on Lived Experience

The crux of the problem arises when we rely too heavily on our personal experiences and interpret them as definitive truths. This can lead to cognitive dissonance, motivated cognition, and other distortions in thinking. Here’s a closer look at how these processes work:

Cognitive Dissonance and Motivated Cognition

Cognitive Dissonance: The mental discomfort experienced when holding conflicting beliefs or values. For example, if you believe in the importance of loyalty but your spouse is cheating, you might experience cognitive dissonance, leading to denial or other rationalizations. Motivated Cognition: The tendency to interpret information in a way that reinforces one’s preexisting beliefs. This can create a closed, self-reinforcing system of thinking that may not align with reality.

For instance, the statement “I’ve survived a brain tumor, so now I’m a brain surgeon” is an illustrative example of how lived experiences can be misused. While personal experiences are valuable, they should not be conflated with professional expertise or scientific rigor.

Higher Familiarity and Bias

One key aspect to consider is the relationship between familiarity and bias. The more time someone spends in a particular context, the more entrenched their biases can become. This phenomenon is often summarized as “higher familiarity with the trees makes one more removed from the forest.”

Subjective Experience vs. Objective Reality: Our subjective experiences are strongly influenced by our cognitive biases and interpretations. However, these subjective experiences may not always reflect the objective reality of a situation. Interpretive Frameworks: These frameworks can lead us to make assumptions and draw conclusions that may not be supported by factual evidence. Understanding and recognizing these frameworks is crucial for avoiding biases.

The Role of Scientific Knowledge

Edward Scheer, a philosopher, observed that early deep thinkers recognized the risks of relying solely on lived experiences. They developed the scientific method specifically to account for and overcome human biases. This method includes meticulous observation, experimentation, and hypothesis testing, which helps ensure that conclusions drawn are based on objective evidence rather than subjective interpretations.

The scientific method provides a structured and objective approach that can help us better understand the world around us. It helps us distinguish between correlation and causation, and it encourages the continual questioning of assumptions and the search for empirical evidence.

Conclusion

While lived experiences are valuable and can provide rich insights into the human condition, they are not a reliable source of scientific knowledge. Our brains are optimized for survival, not for recognizing absolute truths. By understanding the evolutionary biases that shape our perceptions and by adopting a scientific approach, we can bridge the gap between subjective experience and objective reality.

As we navigate the complexities of knowledge and experience, it is important to critically evaluate our assumptions and recognize the limits of subjective interpretations. This will help us make more informed decisions and foster a deeper understanding of the world around us.