Abstract
The main objective of this research is to investigate how the neuroscience information among public is relevant to their explanation for logic implementing neuroscience cognitive psychology. A total research participant of 368 people was selected as research participants that were divided into two groups. One group included the people that had the knowledge of neuroscience and the second group includes the participants that did not have knowledge about neuroscience between the ages 16 to 59 years (Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). Our results show that there is a difference between individuals with neuroscience knowledge and without neuroscience knowledge regardless of the quality of explanation.
Introduction
The field of neuroscience has been extensively studied to investigate human behavior in contemporary times. In the present document, the use of neuroscientific information related to psychological phenomena has been explained to investigate people ability to determine their logical explanation. The main objective of this research is to investigate how the neuroscience information among public is relevant to their explanation for logic implementing neuroscience cognitive psychology. Neuroscience is implemented in the field of the neuropsychological component that needs to explain human behavior and neuropsychology among people. However, there are some studies that show the evidence that the people that have neuroscience information have a better understanding regarding their abilities to judge the quality of psychological explanation. Hence, some of the researches claims that individuals who have better information related to neuroscience information have a stronger belief that the explanation that they give has a logic meaning. They claim to have scientific information would encourage them to believe that people that acquire neuroscientific information can explain a thing through logic. The development of behavior and perception among individual is interconnected with the explanation of the neuroscience information that needs to determine through understanding cognitive information related to psychological component (Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). Based on the objectives to be attained the following are the hypothesis to be tested
H1: There is a significant difference between people with the good explanation with the knowledge of Neuroscience and people without the knowledge of neuroscience.
H2 There is a significant difference between people that give a bad explanation with the knowledge of neuroscience and people without the knowledge of neuroscience.
Method
Results
Demographic Findings
The results show that the total number of 368 people participated in this research. The average age of the participants was 22 years where as the people that participated in the research were between the age group 16 to 58 years.
The majority of the participants were females. The results show that 79.62 percent of research participants were female and 19.84 percent were male and 0.27 belonged to other gender.
The respondents were asked about the courses they were studying. From the overall results, it can be identified that 68.21 percent of research participants were studying Bachelor of Psychology, 20.38 percent were enrolled in Bachelors of Science (speech pathology) and 10.87 percent belonged to the Bachelors of Science Psychology and Human Resource Management and only 0.27 percent belonged to other courses.
Independent t-test is conducted to determine the difference between the good and bad quality explanation provided by the research participants that are exposed to information of neuroscience and those who are not informed with the neuroscience information. Looking at the significance value it can be seen that the value is 0.00 that is less than 0.05 that shows acceptance of hypothesis 1. Also, looking at the overall means and standard deviation it can be noted that the participants that share good explanation among the group that had knowledge about neuroscience and the one that did not have knowledge about neuroscience had significant difference in their opinion.
The second T-test was conducted among the research participants that gave the bad explanation. The output of the T-test results for the group with the neuroscience knowledge and the without neuroscience knowledge with bad explanation shows the value of 0.00 which is less than 0.05 what accepts the hypothesis. Based on the p-value, it can be accepted that there is a significant difference between bad explanation groups with neuroscience knowledge and individuals without neuroscience knowledge.
Discussion
The results show that there is a difference between individuals with neuroscience knowledge and without neuroscience knowledge regardless of the quality of explanation. On the basis of the results obtained, it can be noted that the both groups even the ones that had the knowledge and the ones that do not have neuroscience have different way to explain. The quality of explanation given by each of the participants among the people with the neuroscience knowledge and the ones without neuroscience knowledge explained the psychological information in a different way. Besides, the good and bad quality of explanation shared by the individual belonged to the group of with neuroscience and without neuroscience information. From the results, it can be seen that the level of explanation shared by the participants belonging to the group with neuroscience knowledge had better abilities that contain information that had a good explanation. It is because of the reason that the explanation provided by individuals with the neuroscience knowledge were able to share information more briefly related to the brain and cognitive function even if the explanation was good or bad supported by the study of Craver (2009). On the contrary, psychologists without understanding neuroscience information cannot give psychological explanation that gives information that is accurate. Similarly, the explanation gained by the individuals that do not have neuroscience information gave generalized information that is mainly associated with superstitious and intuitive beliefs that are not accurate. Moreover, these evidences do not supports psychological theories as they require evidences from cognitive and brain functioning that is logic (Bickle, 2015). Hence, it can be noted that the information related to neuroscience is more different because of the abilities and information that is not explained through psychological theories. The other associated factor can be judgments to the explanation regarding the logic. The baseline abilities of one another need to be distinguished in an effective way to differentiate between the bad and good psychological information that may affect the explanation. Since, logic is directly associated with the supporting evidences, scientific information and other related factors (Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). It is important to develop appropriate reasoning for the baseline that supports with the psychological theories with the behavioral theories. In each of the case, it is evident that the people that have neuroscience information give insight to the behavior as well explain the functioning of the brain that is more logical. On the contrary, people that do not have neuroscience information cannot describe the phenomenon. Machamer, Grush & McLaughlin (2012) shares that the information shared by the people who acquire neuroscience information have better judgment because of scientific reasoning that makes it more informative and satisfying (Machamer, Grush, & McLaughlin, 2012). Hence, it can be supported that the systematic information plays a vital role to depict psychological explanation that can actually inform related to the judgment. It may be because of the change in the behavior of individual that affects their ability to explain and physical system. If these both factors are not present in the explanation, it may become meaningless to share information related to psychological process that is relatively not supportive to neuroscience judgments and affects. Craver (2009) shares that the explanation even without neuroscience information makes sense outside laboratory. He explains that the explanation needs to be aligned with the causal mechanistic using multi-level information and evidences regarding neuroscience, psychology and the philosophy of mind and science to stimulate the explanation (Craver, 2009). However, the quality of information shared by the individual with neuroscience information is viewed to have greater potential to change because of their personal responsibility and nature. Our results are indicative that the individuals without neuroscience information are more exposed to biases and judgments. The explanation shared by them is more suspicious and does not support any scientific pieces of evidence leading to logical flaws. It is more developed on their personal perception, beliefs and experiences that have nothing to do with the logical explanation. Also, out results show that the majority of the participants were females that can be a reason that the results gained are more inclined towards a perception of a certain gender. It is important that the similar ratio for the gender in the selection of research participants could have broadened their judgments. Also, it can be seen from the results that the majority of the research participants belonged to the Bachelors of Psychology. Hence, their explanation regarding behavior does depict psychological impacts but does not tell about the brain functioning and the mechanism behind it. Therefore, the judgment is one of the most crucial aspects that influence the explanation for the neuroscience information.
Reference List
Bickle, J. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Black, K. (2011). Business Statistics: For Contemporary Decision Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Craver, C. F. (2009). Explaining the Brain. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Machamer, P. K., Grush, R., & McLaughlin, P. (2012). Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. Pittersburg: University of Pittersberg.
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 20 (3), 470–477.
