4 ms·
> Laughter? Now wait a minute! A real scientist should avoid any and all anthropomorphism, which is why hard-nosed colleagues often ask us to change our termi
by proksoup 11y ago
> Laughter? Now wait a minute! A real scientist should avoid any and all anthropomorphism, which is why hard-nosed colleagues often ask us to change our terminology. Why not call the ape’s reaction something neutral, like, say, vocalized panting? That way we avoid confusion between the human and the animal.
These "real scientists" seem very anthropocentric in their rules about not anthropomorphizing animals.
I feel like he's attacking a straw man ... I'd rather hear more about these anthropocentric real scientists he's railing against, his railing isn't doing much for me without context.
- evv555 11y agoFor some context do a search for "infant surgery without anesthesia". Allegedly infant surgeries were routinely done without anesthesia into the 70's. It was believed babies do not really feel pain and we are just anthropomorphizing their reflexive responses. Anthropomorphization is a real phenomena that needs to be taken into account but so is the use of skepticism as a tool for rationalizing established beliefs.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pvaldes 11y ago> It was believed babies do not really feel pain Or maybe it was because too many anesthesia can easily kill a baby and the other option was seen as safer and better for his/her life. Not all in the history of the humanity is necessarily related with the new painphobia wave. In any case that history about paralized babies and evil surgeons seems entirely or mostly faked to me, telled in the most truculent way possible to elicit a visceral reaction and attract donors or gain social cookies.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]