A few thoughts about empirical evidence, scientific inference and the supposed “logical” fallacy of anthropomorphism (it’s not, actually - it has nothing to do with the construction of arguments)
really? i thought went over this, anthropomorphism is a logical fallacy, in your particular istuation where you claim that the physical and/or chemical similarities result in the same emotional outcomes it is called affirming the consequent, how quickly you forget.
which have come up from my reading on some other forums, that have some relevance to the subject of animal/human relationships.
yes you got it from touchstone, on another thread you followed me too.
Subjectivity is always a risk when it comes to any form of human reasoning.
no kidding. thats the argument ive been making against animmal emotions, that they are your sujective opinion.
Our subjectivity is part of what makes us human. However, the empirical data that generally fall within the scope of scientific study can be tested by experiment, and retested, employing all the controls the scientists think necessary to reach the most accurate and objective outcome possible.
which still doenst equal animal emotions or equality. no scientific process whatsoever can cross the gap of similar chemistry to animal emotions.
To relate this notion to the possibility of animal sentience and emotion, this is something that has been neither proved nor disproved. I don’t claim to know what kind of evidence would objectively falsify the possibility that animals experience emotion,
are you sure you know what objectively falsifies means?, because im pretty sure that that would be trying to prove a negative, and as you found out from santa clause, you just cant do that.
reading a post concerning epistemology imparts no great understanding of the subject.
but it’s safe to say that there is presently no empirical evidence that explicitly denies the possibility.
of course not, you cant prove a negative.
On the contrary, there is a great deal of empirical evidence, from analysing brain chemistry to observation of animal behaviour and learning both in the laboratory and in the wild, that allows us to infer that animals do in fact experience emotion to some degree.
i would love to see this empirical evidence, you do know that empirical evidence would be showing actual emotions?
more of the ‘similar-things-equal-the-same-things’ fallacy.
you just have no reason to draw those conclusions other than a similarity that is easily explained as the consequence of similar chemistry.
more assumption.
As for anthropomorphism, it is clear that the majority of observers can discern that animals are not human,
animals are not human?
and that their behaviour is often unlike that of humans. On that basis, when one infers that animals experience emotion, the accompanying inference is usually that this experience is different - simpler, perhaps - than human affective experience.
you keep using the word ‘inference’ where what you mean is “i assume” “i guess” “i hope”
dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer
INFER
- to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
- (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
***3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
- to hint; imply; suggest. ***
–verb (used without object) 5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
you need something more than inference here, for something no one has ever witnessed.
For example, people who own cats often observe that if the cat does something clumsy - falling off a chair, for example - it will pick itself up and go on as if nothing has happened. People often attribute this to embarrassment, as we might feel in a similar situation. However, it is more likely that the cat is simply avoiding showing any outward sign of weakness - a vital survival mechanism in the wild.
or its just a cat falling off a chair, and getting up to walk away, nothing more at all.
Furthermore, it’s possible to expand upon this notion and see signs of such a survival mechanism at work in humans who experience embarrassment - looking weak or incompetent in front of one’s fellows is apparently never a good thing!
type, type, type, type, type, fruedian slip, type, type, type, type, type…
In my experience, understanding another creature on its own terms greatly enhances one’s appreciation for it. When I learned about canine pack behaviour and applied this knowledge to the way my dog relates to me, it really opened my eyes and helped me to understand him for the amazing and beautiful animal he is. If anything, I would say that trying to anthropomorphise animals actually diminishes them.
when i read my roombas instruction manual, i came to greatly appreciate the sophistication of it programming.
One final thought - somewhat unrelated to the above, but still relevant to the thread - a quotation sprung to my mind recently, for which I have not recalled the source. If anyone knows whence it comes, please let me know. The statement went something like: “The true measure of a man is not in how he treats his equals or his betters, but in how he treats those who are beneath him.”
funny that you would think of that, if we are equal to animals, then who exactly is beneath us.?
