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


"H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3jf73rFplkgbU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:datf7u$kv4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3j4i72Fns7erU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Such as, for example? The BBC? Academic biologists? Fishermen? Please be
>>> specific, rather than just giving vague descriptions.
>>
>> Those that can back up their beliefs with facts that are measurable and
>> provable
>> and repeatable.
>
> Please be specific rather than just giving vague descriptions.
You want me to narrow it down to one individual ?
would the Pope do.


>>> OK, so what sort of evidence _would_ you accept?
>>
>> What sort well there's isn't a spacific sort it has to be
>> repeatable and testable, comparible with other tests.
>
> *sigh* I've given you a couple of examples of possible evidence; raised
> heart rate and pressing the injured area against something. You don't
> accept that those would show evidence of pain;
Raised heart rate is the fishes way of responding to hanges in temperature.
So you rub your head against rocks when you have a head ache do you ?
When people break their fracture/legs the fist thing they do is press
them up against walls is that true.


> can you think of any examples which _would_? See, we could show over and
> over again that injured fish have an increased heart rate; that would be
> repeatable and testable; it would be, in scientific terms, reliable.
Increased heart rate is not a good method of detecting pain in fish.


> Now, obviously whatever evidence we want to use to show whether or not
> fish can feel pain would have to be reliable, but it would _also_ have to
> be valid.
> So, can you think of any forms of evidence which you would consider
> _valid_?

A repeatable experiment that would eliminate other effects that mich look
like pain
such as discomfort, if a fish opens it's mouth regualry it's doesn't mean
it'sdying of thirst,
which might be the case for a human so don't assume the same acts mean the
same thing.

> I'm not asking you whether they should be reliable, whether they should be
> repeatable, I'm asking you to try to think of what might prove that fish
> feel pain, if it were reliable. OK?
It would be difficult but first you'd need to understabnd what pain actualy
is before
you go looking for signs of it.

>
>>> No; I want to know specifically what sort of evidence you _would_
>>> accept.
>>
>> The same sort you'd expect of aliens.
>
> Depends what sort of aliens.
> If we find fossilised bacteria in rocks from somewhere other than earth,
but you'd need to know every form of bacterai on earth and cross reference
before you could claim it as alien. Or you'd have to find something uniquie
that nothing else on earth is a match for.


> I would accept that as evidence of extra-terrestrail life. I'm pretty sure
> that wouldn't prove that fish feel pain though.

Well it wouldn't but you might claim it does if the bacteria was to be seen
'rubbing' itself against a rock or something, because you see anything that
is
rubbing as being in pain.

No you tell me the difference from being in pain to being in discomfort,
work out a way you'd tell the two apart and try it on a fish.



.

Relevant Pages
Loading