Re: Fish don't have ethical feet it doesn't mean they can't move- was Re: Ethical feet


"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:db2r1q$boc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3jie18Fq7ttkU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> OK, so you're not going to be content with evidence which has already
>> been written; the only way you can be convinced is by actually having a
>> conversation with someone who has proved this?
> No just show me the evidence.

As soon as we've established what sort of evidence would convince you, I
will go and see if such evidence exists, OK?

> If you have any evidence REAL evidence not just cluessless
> thoughts then show it. As I said I don't actually know whether they feel
> pain as pain can be said to be psychological because it doesn't actually
> exists at the point of damage. It's like looking at a house with lights on
> you may well assume someone's home but that is not evidence that someone
> is home.
> There's a difference do you understand that.

Yes, absolutely. What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not claiming
there is absolute evidence; I'm asking you what sort of evidence,
specifically, you would accept. As soon as you've answered that question, I
will see if I can find such evidence.

>> But talking to someone is?
> No where did you get that idea from ?

You said that you'd accept evidence from someone you could ask questions of.

>> But someone who worked in a fish shop wouldn't have to prove that they
>> knew those things?
>
> They can believe what they like just like you, but if they want to prove
> it to me
> they'll need evidence.

Excellent. What sort of evidence would they need?

You've said that fish breathing rapidily is a sign of
> pain

No I didn't. i said that an increased heart rate could be a sign a pain, not
that it _sis_, and not rapid breathing. Try to remember what peopple have
and haven't said, or actually check your facts, OK?

>> Also, you said before that you would accept behavioural evidence of pain;
>> you're now suggesting that you would _only_ accept nuerological evidence;
>> is that correct?
> No because both should be connected, it's a two way message thing.

OK, so you'd want behavioural evidence _and_ neurological evidence? Good.
What sort of behavioural evidence? And what sort of neurological evidence?

>> They'd have a lot of experience of selling fish; do you think they'd know
>> a lot about fish brains, necessarily?
> No not necessarilty but they may know more about the behavoiur of real
> fish rather
> than farmed or kept fish wish maywell behave differently in captivity.

So what sort of behaviours do you think they might have witnessed which
would indicate pain?

>
>>See, someone who's just studied marine biology may well have dissected
>>fish and examined their brains very closely; they may well have looked at
>>their behaviour in a number of different conditions, and watched it
>>closely over periods of hours.
> Wow hours rather than years.

I mean in a single block; someone who sells fish won't ever have spent four
hours, in a block, just watching one particular fish; someone studying
marine biology may well have done exactly that.

>> Someone who sells fish may never have done any of these things, and may
>> well feel that an injured fish is of no use, and should be flushed or
>> bashed on a brick; there's no point feeding something you can't sell, and
>> you can't sell injured fish.
> You can't sell a dissected dead fish either and dissected dead fish
> aren't normally an ideal way to demonstrate the existance of pain.

That's right, so they won't have examined the nervous system or brain very
carefully, will they?

>> So is a fish-shop owner _really_ the best person to ask about this?
> I'd prefer to 'ask' more than one person but I think all my local
> fish 'dealer's know more than you do, or more than you've shown you
> do at least.

Yes, I'm sure they do. I haven't actually made any claims here, Dave; you do
know that, don't you? Or have you just assumed that I'm making claims, even
though I'm not?

>> No, it isn't at all like that. It's not at all hard to imagine some
>> evidence which would conclusively prove a particular theory; that's how
>> an awful lot of academic research works. You figure out what would prove
>> your theory,a nd then you look for that evidence.
>
> You've done that, you said they feel pain because of thier rapid
> breathing.
> You are wrong, so try something else to prove it.

No, I haven't said that at all. I said an increased heartbeat might be a
sign of pain, and you've pointed out that it might also be a sign or fear or
distress.
So, what sort of behaviour might be a sign of pain, but not a sign of fear
or distress?

>> Ok, good. How? Say someone's writhing around on the floor; are they in
>> pain? Or discomfort? Or just laughing really hard? Or pretending to be in
>> pain? How do you tell?
>
> Observing expressions,

And how can you tell the difference between an expression of pain, and an
expression of anger or distress or fear?

> why do you think asking someone would get you
> the truth, you can't ask a fish so you really shouldn't use that as your
> means
> for detecting pain, NO fish has ever told me they are in pain,
> but I'm not stupid enough be believe that doesn't mean they are in pain or
> just feel discomfort. I don't ask my fish if they are hungrey either,
> because
> they have never told me they were, but they always tend to eat when given
> food.

Excellent, you're getting the point.

So, how _could_ you tell if your fish are, say, hungry?

>> That's not true, actually; there's an instinctive reaction, to press or
>> rub an mild injury, because it makes it feel better. Kids "rub it better"
>> all the time, and actually adults do the same.
> It doesn't solve the problem though does it, it's a false remedy,
> all it dies is divert attention of the brain. Rubbing a cut does heal it.
>
>> Have you never had a stitch in your side from running, and pressed your
>> hand against it until it went away?
> Not bloody likely !
> Anyway peole but thier hands all over their bodies and other peoples
> it need not be a sign of pain.

That's right, it need not, but sometimes it is.

> Saying that if you touch any area of the body is a sign or pain in falty
> evidence.
> try again.

I didn't say that though, did I? It is one possible sign, but it is not
always a sign. However, if someone has just suffered an injury, and they
immediately press their hand to the injury site, in those circumstances it
probably is a sign of pain; would you agree?

>> or banged your head on something and immediately put your hand up to
>> press against the bit you hurt?
> Tell someone a bad joke and they may well do the same, they may even knock
> their head against a wall while talking to you now that may well be
> evidence of pain.
>
> Footballers put their heads in their hands when they miss a shot,
> some do the same when thinking is that a sign of pain too.

No; obviously putting a hand to your head can be a sign of lots of things,
of which pain is only one. However, when coupled with an injury, we
generally assume that it is a sign of pain in humans. Would it be
reasonable, then, to make the same assumption about non-humans?

>>>> No Dave, of course it wouldn't. Why do you keep doing that?
>>> Because you do.
>>
>> I do what?
> Saying things that are known to be false evidence as if another would be
> stupid enough to believe it.

Except that I haven't done anything of the sort.
Perhaps if you stopped assuming everything I say is wrong, and actually
_read_ what I'm saying, and didn't read anything else extra into it, this
discussion would be easier?

>> I didn't say they would demonstrate it to you; I'm asking what behaviours
>> they could show which would convince you that they feel pain. Are there
>> any?
> Yes as I said a test and a retest wityh the ability to prove no other
> mechenisum
> is likely to cause the effect witnessed.
> i.e rapid breathing is NOT a sign of pain in fish.

OK. No-one has claimed that it is.
What _is_ a sign of pain in fish, or what would be, if they felt pain?

>
>>>> Yes, it is a bit like that. Now, I feel satisfied that other humans do
>>>> feel pain, based on the sort of evidence to which we have access. Do
>>>> you think other humans feel pain, or do you think it's impossible to
>>>> tell if _any_ animal is in pain?
>>>
>>> You can run certain tests.
>>
>> What tests?
> See the one about cutting students legs.

That wouldn't tell you if they were feeling pain though, would it? It
involves doing things which you assume would cause pain, or not, an noting
that the reactions are different, but that doesn't actually prove that they
feel pain.

>>> Erratic behavour which can not be put down to anything else.
>>
>> How would you know it couldn't be put down to anything else?
> Think about what else it could prove.

Such as what?

>> For example, if a fish was injured, how could you know their erratic
>> behaviour was due to pain rather than to distress, or to damage?
> I've had fish that have lost fins due to damage, you are even advised
> to cut off certain growths from fins. If a fish looses part of it's tail
> I've never
> seen them swim erratically, they tend to swim differently in the same way
> a man with one leg walks differently from a man with two legs,
> walking differently is not a sign of pain.

You didn't answer my question. If a fish was injured (and then behaved
erratically, for example swimming unevenly), how could you know what exactly
was causing that behaviour?

H


.

Relevant Pages
Loading