Scientific Theories Also Shape the Researcher’s Brain

How the words of science become neural lenses for observing the world

In science, we often imagine that the researcher observes reality in a neutral way. The data would simply be there, waiting to be discovered, and the scientist would merely reveal what is already present.

But the history of science shows something more complex.

Before observing a phenomenon, a researcher already carries words, concepts, and theories in their mind. These words are not neutral. They organize how the brain perceives the world.

In other words:

scientific theories also shape the brain of the scientist who uses them.

Theory as a perceptual lens

The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn famously argued that scientists work within paradigms. A paradigm is a set of concepts, methods, and interpretations that guide how phenomena should be observed and understood.

Today we can reinterpret this insight in neurocognitive terms.

When a researcher adopts a theory, they acquire a conceptual vocabulary. This vocabulary organizes attention, expectation, and even what counts as relevant data.

For example:

a researcher working within the concept of attention may notice certain phenomena.
another working within the framework of prediction may interpret the same data differently.

The physical phenomenon may be identical.
But the conceptual lens changes the interpretation.

The brain predicts before it observes

Much of contemporary neuroscience describes the brain as a system that constantly generates predictions about the world.

Before a stimulus is fully processed, the brain already has expectations about what should appear.

These expectations are shaped by:

• previous experience

• cultural learning

• language

• theoretical frameworks

This means that perception is not simply the reception of information.
It is also interpretation guided by internal models.

When a scientist adopts a theory, that theory becomes a predictive model within the researcher’s own brain.

It begins to guide what the researcher expects to find.

When theory organizes perception

This process can be observed throughout the history of science.

Different theoretical schools often observe the same experimental phenomena, yet propose different interpretations.

This does not necessarily mean the data are incorrect. It means that data are interpreted through conceptual frameworks.

And conceptual frameworks are built with words.

Words such as:

• attention

• emotion

• consciousness

• cognition

• representation

• prediction

Each of these terms carries decades of theoretical debate and experimental tradition.

When researchers use these words, they activate conceptual networks associated with them.

These networks influence how the phenomenon is perceived and interpreted.

Science as a collective process

Another important point is that science is not only an individual activity. It is also a collective process.

Researchers learn concepts within scientific communities. They read similar papers, use similar terminology, and adopt shared methodologies.

Over time, this creates scientific cultures.

Within these cultures, certain words become central tools for interpreting phenomena.

This shared language allows collaboration and cumulative knowledge. However, it can also produce interpretive rigidity when certain concepts stop being questioned.

The value of scientific critical thinking

Recognizing that theories shape the researcher’s brain does not weaken science.

On the contrary, it highlights one of the most important drivers of scientific progress: the ability to question our own conceptual lenses.

When new evidence emerges, researchers must be able to ask:

• Does this theory still explain the data?

• Are there alternative interpretations?

• Are we observing something new, or simply forcing the phenomenon into an existing framework?

The capacity to reorganize concepts is one of the engines of scientific advancement.

Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 in scientific practice

We can imagine three possible states in how theories guide scientific thinking.

Zone 1
The researcher automatically applies learned concepts with little reflection.

Zone 3
The theory becomes rigid and ideological. Contradictory data are ignored or reinterpreted to preserve the paradigm.

Zone 2
The researcher uses theories as tools but remains open to revising them when data demand it.

In Zone 2, theory does not imprison perception.
It functions as a temporary instrument for investigating reality.

Toward a science more aware of its own language

If words organize perception and theories organize words, then understanding the role of language in science becomes essential.

This opens a deeper level of reflection for researchers.

Not only:

What are we observing?

But also:

With which words are we observing it?

This question becomes especially important in a global scientific landscape that increasingly integrates different traditions of knowledge.

Indigenous, Latin American, and decolonial perspectives have shown that different cultures possess distinct ways of organizing experience, perception, and language.

Integrating these perspectives may enrich scientific understanding.

A simple conclusion

Perhaps one of the most important insights is this:

Science does not observe the world only with instruments.

It also observes the world with words.

These words organize attention, perception, and interpretation.

Recognizing this does not weaken science.

Instead, it can make science more reflective, more critical, and more open to discovery.

References Post-2021:

Guimarães, D. S. (2023). Indigenous Psychology as a General Science for Escaping the Snares of Psychological Methodolatry.
Contribution: Explores how different epistemologies and cultural traditions shape psychological understanding and scientific interpretation.

Baniwa, G. (2023). Indigenous History in Independent Brazil: From the threat of disappearance to protagonism and differentiated citizenship.
Contribution: Shows how cultural narratives and epistemologies influence ways of interpreting knowledge and social reality.

Benites, S. (2022–2024). Works on Guarani cosmology, Indigenous art, and territorial knowledge.
Contribution: Demonstrates how language, territory, and lived experience structure perception and meaning-making.

Candia-Rivera, D. (2022). Brain–heart interactions in the neurobiology of consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Contribution: Demonstrates how physiological signals from the body interact with brain activity in shaping conscious experience.

Quadt, L., Critchley, H. D., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2022). Cognition, emotion, and the central autonomic network. Autonomic Neuroscience.
Contribution: Explains the deep integration between cognitive processes, emotion, and autonomic physiological regulation.

Feldman, M. J., et al. (2024). The neurobiology of interoception and affect. Annual Review of Psychology.
Contribution: Shows how internal bodily signals contribute to mental states, perception, and interpretation.