We have on occasion here discussed the way that preconceived notions effect your perceptions. This has always been considered especially dangerous for scientist who are, by rule,supposed to be able to interpret data without preferential bias. However, we all know this is not the case. -Discovery Magazine (July/August 2011) offers up two great articles that show how deeply embedded these predispositions to a particular bias are. The first article is entitled 'The End of Morality', by Kristin Ohlson. The article describes the work of Joshua Greene and Fiery Cushman, both neuroscientist, as they try to reduce moral dilemmas to competition between two parts of your brain. They have managed to link the regions of the brain that control emotion and logic to a moral choice, which I can find no fault with. However, in the article, another researcher, Jorge Moll, is quoted as saying, "I think these instincts evolved from nonhuman primates' capacity to form social bonds and from mother-offspring attachment capacities..." This is the part I take issue with. We have not proven beyond reasonable doubt that we evolved from primates, yet the assertion being made is that our ability to make moral decisions comes from pre-human ancestry. -Also, in the article, 'What You Don't Know Can Kill You!', by Jason Daley, university researcher George Loewenstein is quoted as saying, 'Types of stimuli that people are evolutionarily prepared for..' again attributes their results to an unproven hypothesis. Not to mention dragging up all sorts of speculation on HOW memories are transferred from one generation to the next. -The major issue I take with this is not that the researchers in question believe in evolution. Honestly, I could care less. Every person is entitled to their beliefs. However, when speaking from a position of authority on a particular subject, I do wish they would take some care as to not make leaps of faith a matter of public education. It is not acceptable when churches do it, and it is not acceptable when scientist do it.