fhfjgkvjvj

Is it? Scientists and PR firms get funded by big donors. Professional scientists are typically honest, but which studies get funded are picked by people that aren't necessarily. The public sort of understands that things generally are arrayed against them though they can't necessarily explain why mechanistically.

In this case, it might be even simpler than that. It might be that regardless of what they believe about scientists and the formal logic of their assignment, they just don't like being forced to say things they despise. This could be seen as noble though its not exactly a plus for debating.

Sure, ideology impacts formal reasoning, but if you look at the examples given the participants have good reason to reject the conclusions of formal logic that is based on terrible premises.

Despite the result of a simple sequence of sentences divorced from reality, cigarettes really are bad for you and salads are good (depending on their contents).

In study 1) participants might disagree with dangerous drugs being banned, and they disagree that marijuana is dangerous. In 2) premise 1 seems relatively straightforward, then premise 2 is a highly ideological belief (as is the point of the study).

I don't think this is very revealing. When you add 1+2 and get 68445788, you are suprised by the conclusion and check your work. People responding to this aren't dumb, they just aren't playing along with what they regard as faulty reasoning. Basically, they are likely saying I know what the researcher wants me to say, but this is wrong and I won't go along with it.