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:db5ju2$ahe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3jkep7Fqg4i0U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> As soon as we've established what sort of evidence would convince you, I
>> will go and see if such evidence exists, OK?
>
> Tell me what you mean by sort because I have no idea what your talking
> about.

OK, this is what I thought; I wish you'd said earlier that you didn't
understand what I meant, it would have saved some time and bother.

OK, we know that in order to prove anything, evidence must be both reliable
(that is, it can be repeated at different times or by different people and
still get the same results) and it must also measure or prove what we
actually _want_ it to prove.
You've said that we can't use a fish's heart rate as a measure of whether
they feel pain, which is fair enough; you don't feel it's a valid measure.
So what I want from you is an example of something that _would_ be a valid
measure; something that actually _would_ show whether fish can feel pain or
not. Heart-rate is an example of a possible measure, but we're rejecting
that one; I want you to come up with another possible measure, which _is_
valid, and which we can't reject.

In other words, I want you to say something along the lines of "We could
measure X, and that would tell us whether fish feel pain or not", where "X"
is some behavioural or neurological thing that we could measure or observe.
You might feel that one single measure isn't enough, in which case you might
want to say "We could measure X and observe Y, and between the two (or
three, or however many) that would tell us whether fish feel pain or not"

Is that clearer?

H


.

Relevant Pages