What is counterintuitive? Religious cognition and natural expectation

Russell, Yvan I. ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4608-4791 and Gobet, Fernand (2013) What is counterintuitive? Religious cognition and natural expectation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4 . pp. 715-749. [Article] (doi:10.1007/s13164-013-0160-5)

[img] PDF - Published version (with publisher's formatting)
Restricted to Repository staff and depositor only

Download (659kB) |


What is ‘counterintuitive’? There is general agreement that it refers to a violation of previously held knowledge, but the precise definition seems to vary with every author and study. The aim of this paper is to deconstruct the notion of 'counterintuitive’ and provide a more philosophically rigorous definition congruent with the history of psychology, recent experimental work in ‘minimally counterintuitive’ concepts, the science vs. religion debate, and the developmental and evolutionary background of human beings. We conclude that previous definitions of counterintuitiveness have been flawed and did not resolve the conflict between a believer’s conception of the supernatural entity (an atypical “real kind”) and the non-believer’s conception (empty name/fictional). Furthermore, too much emphasis has been placed on the universality and (presumed) innateness of intuitive concepts (and hence the criteria for what is counterintuitive)—and far too little attention paid to learning and expertise. We argue that many putatively universal concepts are not innate, but mostly learned and defeasible—part of a religious believer’s repertoire of expert knowledge. Nonetheless, the results from empirical studies about the memorability of counterintuitive concepts have been convincing and it is difficult to improve on existing designs and methodologies. However, future studies in counterintuitive concepts need to embed their work in research about context effects, typicality, the psychology of learning and expertise (for example, the formation of expert templates and range defaults), with more attention to the sources of knowledge (direct and indirect knowledge) and a better idea of what ‘default’ knowledge really is.

Item Type: Article
Research Areas: A. > School of Science and Technology > Psychology
Item ID: 18171
Notes on copyright: Access to full text restricted pending copyright check
Depositing User: Yvan Russell
Date Deposited: 15 Oct 2015 10:53
Last Modified: 30 Nov 2022 00:09
URI: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/id/eprint/18171

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item


Activity Overview
6 month trend
6 month trend

Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.