Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians

Richard Burke wrote:

This is long. Sorry.

I've been *soooo* frustrated not to take part in this discussion. I have spent a lot of time with scientists researching the whole issue of animal-vs-human cognition. Sadly, I simply can't commit to taking part in the discussion in any full time way. However...

There are pieces of information and ideas that might be of use to those of you who are more fully engaged in the discussion. So I offer these for what they are worth, and to whoever will listen.

From the outside of the debate, it seems clear that there are areas of overlap between the two sides. *No one* is claiming a direct equivalence between a bower bird's display behaviour and the creation of the Eiffel Tower. *No one* is saying that humans are 'the same' as other animals. I am sure that everyone here would agree that humans are distinct and unique. But so are naked mole rats... So I think the question ultimately comes down to this:

Do you think humans are interesting and successful *animals*, or do you think they deserve a classification that effectively removes them from the animal kingdom? That's what you guys are discussing. And we already know who stands where. So let's get down to some hard facts and some tough ideas...

1. First up, let's actually talk about who does science, and why, and how. If a bunch of gorillas were exchanging sophisticated metaphysical ideas, would we actually know? Answer - no, but it does seem a tad unlikely that they are. There are two problems here:

(a) lack of data - we simply don't have enough clear information to know what's going on in most animals' heads (more on this later); and

(b) A rather charming scientific approach pioneered by one Burrhus Frederick Skinner, who proposed that the best way to study animal behaviour without our (human) perception becoming involved in the outcome was to treat what went on inside the animal (i.e., its thought processes, if it has any) as a "black box". You may observe behaviour, vocalisations, conflicts, tool use, whatever - but you may not - no, *must* not - infer any motives or thought to the animal in question. Skinner created a paradigm that was designed to be objective, but in the process it also predefined the way scientists were able to talk about animal behaviour. He didn't *say* that animals didn't have minds - but it became unacceptable for scientists to discuss animals as thought they *did* - and that holds true even today. Behaviour is described as "instinctive" because it has to be framed in terms of its adaptive or inherited value to the animal. Animals *can't* have feelings or thoughts because the black box model specifically excludes that possibility.

Talk to any scientist dealing with cognition in mentally complex animals (I have talked to hundreds), and they will tell you that this is now the biggest barrier to their research. Privately, they will then also tell you that the model is wrong. They are in no doubt about the mental status of their subjects - but the burden of proof, given the back box model, is extremely high. (Many hard-nosed researchers, have told me that they reckon bottle-nosed dolphins have roughly the same mental abilities as an average human seven year old. Could they justify that in a scientific paper? Nope. But then, if they were non-human, they'd struggle to *prove* that a seven year old human had that ability too.)

Some people in this thread have asserted that if (some) animals were genuinely sapient (for want of a better word), then the proof would already be obvious. The answer to that is a resounding NO. Under the Skinnerian model, we would have problems distinguishing between the Eiffel Tower and a termite mound. Our own human 'language' would be mostly associated with feeding behaviour or courtship. We would be so complex in our behaviour that no scientist would yet have enough data for definitive conclusions... A bit like we are with chimps and bottle nose dolphins. Too complex. Not enough data. But what data we *do* have is... suggestive.

The Skinnerian model *predefines* what research can show us about animals. It limits what we *can* think about them in a way that would enrage us if it was applied to us. Present science has a built-in double standard.

Absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence. It takes more data than we currently have to work out what is going on in the 'mind' of a complex social animal. The Skinnerian model would describe us as peculiarly complex beasts, but nothing more.

Skinner might even be right. More on this later.

3. Let's nail some terminology. To talk about "whales and dolphins" on one side and "humans" on the other is like talking about "lizards" on one side and the Javan rhino on the other. You are not comparing two species. On one side you are lumping a whole load of species together - thousands of species, actually. Do "whales and dolphins" show signs of sophisticated cognition? On average, no. But ask a better question: do specific cetacean species show documented signs of sophisticated cognition? Answer: abso-bleeding-lutely yes.

Bottle-nose dolphins are one of the four non-human species to show *scientific* evidence of self-awareness. (The others are chimps, bonobos, gorillas and elephants - the jury is still out on orang utans, but the early signs are that they should join the club.) How many other species are self-aware in ways we have yet to test for? Who knows? Skinner's philosophy barely lets us ask the question. But while we're on the subject, bottle-nose dolphins, Bahamian spotteds and Orcas also show strong evidence of something disturbingly close to a rudimentary 'language'. I could go into a whole laod of stuff here about Shannon entropy - but those of you who are genuinely interested in opening their minds to new information will do a simple Google and find out what I'm talking about. The limit of our understanding of dolphin communication currently has to do with the limits of the data set, not the limits of their communication.

I'm not claiming bottle-nose dolphins 'talk' like we do, but there is strong (and developing) evidence of what amounts to a grammar in bottle-nose communication. This is *science* - harsh, uncharitable Skinnerian science. This is *not* speculative or fuzzy. This is fact.

I'm not claiming they're like us, or that they are anywhere near as accomplished as us (at being human - of course, they're pretty good at being dolphins). But I *am* claiming that the more research we do, the more it seems we are different more in *kind* than in absolute nature. This is not an opinion, it's science. Skinnerian, uncharitable science. The science that, if we applied it to ourselves, would have us as substantially less than human.

On *top* of the science, there is a whole load of anecdote that implies even greater similarities between us and them (animals). I'm not judging that; I'm sticking to published, peer-reviewed science.

4. One more point of *fact* (there are zillions more points, but it's 1 a.m., and I'm out of time and energy). There are very large scientific questions hanging over just how much we humans are in control of our own behaviour. Many things that were once defined as a matter of intellectual choice are being redefined as instinctive behaviour followed by post-hoc rationalisation. Indeed, the whole nature of 'consciousness' as a human phenomenon is being challenged. Perhaps it's just another adaptive (or even accidental) phenomenon - but our essential nature is almost certainly as 'programmed' and instinctive as a bee dance.

I'm not making this up. The more we learn, the easier it is becoming to describe *us* in exactly those same Skinnerian terms that predefine animals as 'qualititatively unlike us'.

5. Another point fact (it's 1.30 now - but I just couldn't leave it!). Folk have talked about humans being 98% the same as chimps, and that's true. But please bear in mind that bonobos are also 98% the same as chimps - and we tend to think chimps and bonobos are one and the same. We are 98% different from *both* of them, in completely different ways. Also, genetically, we are 65% the same as an oak tree. That's worth remembering.

6. Teach a chimp and human child a complex puzzle with a sweet as a prize, and they will both learn it. Then show them a transparent version of the same puzzle, where it is *visibly* obvious that the first 5 moves are not physically connected to getting the sweet. The chimp will cut straight to the moves that get sweet (smart, huh?), but the child will still go through the entire routine, even when it's obvious that she's accomplishing nothing for the first 5 moves. She is programmed for cultural learning. Each chimp has to learn for him or her self. (There's lots of data on this. Chimps learn, but they don't teach, humans are programmed teach and to learn. But before anyone gets too smug, note that word - *programmed*. It's wired in. It's what some imaginary uber-human would dismiss as 'instinctive' behaviour.)

Right, that's the end of the numbered points. Now, a point or two entirely of my own...

I am *not* claiming that all creatures are equivalent, let alone morally equivalent. Humans *are* different, We have done things as a collective species that no other species has done. Individual humans? Well, that's a different question. The smartest apes and dolphins may well be the moral / intellectual betters of the feeblest humans. So, to set humans apart and claim that what our best humans do reflects the nature of us *all* is... fine - provided you are then prepared to extend the same moral courtesy to animals. If there's a chimp that can communicate in sign language and is clearly self-aware, then that means *all* chimps should be given the same credence. Or else, al humans shouldn't.

Choose.

If you are unprepared to accept that the principle of "we-are-one-and exemplified-by-our-best" is also applicable to animals, then you are either a hypocrite, or you are asserting that humans are a special case *a priori* because like must stick with like. Or, to push it to an extreme, you are saying, "*** the rest of them, humans come first." Or should that be white people? Or Buddhists? Hey, or maybe chimps? It depends which bits of evidence you wish to ignore, or which bits of research your culture chooses not to fund. Remember, absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence. It's just absence of research.

In the absence of meaningful research, all of you have a choice. If a chimp or a bottle-nose displays human-like behaviour, you can choose to be Skinnerian or you can choose to be... well... human. Our responsibility to our own kind is different to our responsibility to other species. But to claim science as the justification for treating animals as *morally* different from ourselves is (a) bollocks - i.e., unscientific - and (b) dangerously similar to the rationale that led to the holocaust.

Just some thoughts. As I said, I can't plunge in full time. But none of my comments are aimed at individuals, and the science I have quoted is a simple matter of *fact*.

Bye for now,

Richard

____
Richard Burke
<www.richardburke.co.uk>

Thank you, Richard, for the excellent post. Very enlightening. It has been about 30 years since someone mentioned Skinner to me. I had completely forgotten all that stuff.


Francis A. Miniter
.