From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 11:05:25 EST
Adrian wrote: "It is extremely tempting to ascribe human emotions and
thoughts to animals who behave like us, and as scientists, we have toextra
careful and critical."
I responded: While I agree, it is also very tempting to apply "nothing
buttery" to the question and claim victory for "scientific objectivity,"
AT: You seem to want to support two contradictory positions here.
JB: Not at all. What I am suggesting is rule #1 of science -- "Consider ALL
the evidence."
AT: We need a set of criteria to prevent falling on either the side of
radical skepticism or anthropomorphism. At the very least, one needs
positive experimental evidence of higher cognitive abilities in animals,
beyond mere naturalistic observations. To my knowledge, the most ambitious
projects with such an aim are the sign language research on primates. And
what we have after decades of research is that these animals are highly
mechanical in their expressive language, and they do much better with
receptive language. The discontinuity between modern humans and any other
species is so striking that it would take an incredible leap of faith to
sustain an argument for psychological
continuity.
JB: If one limits his considerations to only that narrow set of data
represented by the above, you might be right (I have not studied it in any
detail and so am agnostic on what that data might point to). But that set of
data is not ALL the evidence, friend.
If you read WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP, we can have a discussion on some of (hardly
all) of the additional data that pertains to the question. At least read the
review in PERSPECTIVES or on my web site to see how the data is described.
At that point you will understand my "nothing buttery" comment, at least.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Adrian Teo" <ateo@whitworth.edu>
>To: "John Burgeson"
><burgythree@hotmail.com>,<rjschn39@bellsouth.net>,<asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: animals and humans (was "Evolution wars")
>Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:52:03 -0800
>
>Hello and Merry Christmas to you John,
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Adrian wrote: "It is extremely tempting to ascribe human emotions and
> thoughts to animals who behave like us, and as scientists, we have to
> extra careful and critical."
>
> While I agree, it is also very tempting to apply "nothing
>buttery" to the
> question and claim victory for "scientific objectivity,"
>
>
>
> AT: You seem to want to support two contradictory positions here. Can't
>have it both ways. We need a set of criteria to prevent falling on either
>the side of radical skepticism or anthropomorphism. At the very least, one
>needs positive experimental evidence of higher cognitive abilities in
>animals, beyond mere naturalistic observations. To my knowledge, the most
>ambitious projects with such an aim are the sign language research on
>primates. And what we have after decades of research is that these animals
>are highly mechanical in their expressive language, and they do much better
>with receptive language. The discontinuity between modern humans and any
>other species is so striking that it would take an incredible leap of faith
>to sustain an argument for psychological continuity.
>
> Blessings,
>
> Adrian.
>
>
>
Adrian wrote: "It is extremely tempting to ascribe human emotions and
thoughts to animals who behave like us, and as scientists, we have to
extra careful and critical."
While I agree, it is also very tempting to apply "nothing
buttery" to the
question and claim victory for "scientific objectivity,"
AT: You seem to want to support two contradictory positions here. Can't
have it
both ways. We need a set of criteria to prevent falling on either the side
of
radical skepticism or anthropomorphism. At the very least, one needs
positive
experimental evidence of higher cognitive abilities in animals, beyond mere
naturalistic observations. To my knowledge, the most ambitious projects with
such an aim are the sign language research on primates. And what we have
after
decades of research is that these animals are highly mechanical in their
expressive language, and they do much better with receptive language. The
discontinuity between modern humans and any other species is so striking
that it
would take an incredible leap of faith to sustain an argument for
psychological
continuity.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 27 2002 - 19:45:05 EST