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:db0q0c$m5u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3jhogpFpeqltU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> And how would you determine whether they understood the objective?
>
> Ask then, or see if theirn test could prove what they say it did.

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?

> Liek I said hammering a NiN into a hoof is not proof that
> horses hooves feel pain.

But talking to someone is?

>> Which? Comparitive psychologists deal with animals, and neurologists deal
>> with brains.
> So Comparitive psychologists don't deal with humans do they deal with fish
> ?

Some of them, yes.

>
> Do neurologists know as much about fish brains as they do human ones.

Some of them, yes.

>
>>>> or a chap who works at an aquarium? Or an assistant at the local
>>>> tropical fish shop?
>>> I know a few of them and the one that's about 70 started fishing at
>>> the age of around 10, kept fish for something like 40 years and has won
>>> trophies
>>> for fuishing and breeding a keeping fish, yes I might listen to his POV
>>> a bit more
>>> intently than a student that's just passed their degree in fish studies.
>>
>> OK, so academic study isn't important, from your point of view?
> I never said that, but an academic wopuld have to prove that they
> understood
> what pain is and where it is located in the brain and what exactly causes
> this 'pain' and then show me that the same things exist in fish and that
> the
> messages are send/recived in the same way and produce the same effects.

But someone who worked in a fish shop wouldn't have to prove that they knew
those things?

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?

>
>> Do you think a fish shop assistant would have checked and rechecked their
>> evidence in the way you require?
> Someone that has been in the business 50 years might have more experiece
> than someone that had just passed their exams.

They'd have a lot of experience of selling fish; do you think they'd know a
lot about fish brains, necessarily? 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. 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.

So is a fish-shop owner _really_ the best person to ask about this?

>> But you haven't said what _sort_ of evidence, other than that it has to
>> be reliable. Do you understand what I'm asking you?
> No idea, is it like asking what evidence you look for to prove rape,
> and you say well sex has taken place so it must be rape.

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.

>> Except that actually, you can't tell, by looking at someone, whether
>> they're in pain; you have to ask them.
> You can tell without asking.

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?

>> With difficulty. You'd look at their heart-rate and breathing, you'd look
>> at whether they were pressing their hands over a wound, and you'd look at
>> the physical damage, but you'vce rejected all of those as signs of pain
>> already, so they're no help, are they?
>
> No they aren't peole cover tjhioer wounds to protect them not because
> they are painful.

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. Have you never had a stitch in
your side from running, and pressed your hand against it until it went away?
or banged your head on something and immediately put your hand up to press
against the bit you hurt?

>>> Yu see if you see someone remove chewing gum from the heel of their
>>> pointy boot it's not because they feel pain, peole don't feel pain
>>> in their shoes but for you I guess that would be evidence enough
>>> to prove that boots hurt.
>>
>> No Dave, of course it wouldn't. Why do you keep doing that?
> Because you do.

I do what?

>> No, I'm not. i'm asking for hypothetical examples of a way in which a
>> fish could demonstrate, to your satisfaction, that it was feeling pain.
>> If there are no ways in which it could do that, then just say so.
>
> They don't have to demonstrate it to me, any more than a beagle
> has to demomstarte that smoking is a health hazard.

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, 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?

>> They _could_ be a sign of pain. By the way, i didn't say "rubbing against
>> rocks"; Jenny pointed out that, just as humans will press their hands
>> over an injury site when in pain, fish will press an injury site up
>> against something such as the side of their tank. That's not quite the
>> same thing.
>
> Well not having observed this I wouldn't comment.

*heh* You have been doing so...

>> OK, excellent. What sort of behaviour would fish exhibit when in pain, if
>> they could 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? 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?

H


.

Relevant Pages
Loading