3 ms·

Regarding the authenticity of your anecdote, I was very clear to state > I think you dramatically underestimate the power of people to empathize, which require

Regarding the authenticity of your anecdote, I was very clear to state > I think you dramatically underestimate the power of people to empathize, which requires great intelligence and (yes) is vulnerable to manipulation. Second, when I say I trust these reporters it's because I don't have access to more authoritative information or analyses, but I still maintain a reasonable skepticism. That is, I defer to those presumed to be experts while acknowledging that the scientific value of the claims of said experts are in debate. I believe the people who report meaningful communication with Koko themselves believe they are having meaningful communication. I acknowledge that the scientific understandings of communication, understanding, and cognition cannot easily be brought to bear. Basically, I try to keep a nuanced view especially because, from what I understand, ethnological reports are considered to be important in the fields of primatology and anthropology. EDIT: remove extraneous pronoun

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Second, when I say I trust these reporters it's because I don't have access to more authoritative information or analyses, but I still maintain a reasonable skepticism. I just finished reading this (one of the references in the wikipedia article): Petitto, L. A., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). On the evidence for linguistic abilities in signing apes. Brain and Language, 8(2), 162-183. Quick version: Patterson's research with Koko was poorly documented and does not stand up to scrutiny. For instance, instead of compiling a corpus of Koko's utterances she presented only individual examples. This makes it impossible to know whether an utterance reported as being in context in a specific situation was actually as claimed- because we have no idea how often Koko signed the same utterance in different contexts [the article needs Elsevier access. See my profile email if you have questions]. It is possible to find many more examples of strong criticisms of Patterson's research with Koko, as well as other similar research (Gardner and Gardner with Washoe and Terrace and Bever with Nim Chimpsky). Basically, I don't think there's anyone who thinks apes have shown any linguistic ability (well, apes except for humans, of course). >> Regarding the authenticity of your anecdote (...) Well, it is exactly the authenticity of my anecdote that is what a scientific analysis would need to determine. Our ability to empathise is not questioned. The question is whether we can use reports of our feelings as evidence to make claims about the nature of reality. If I visit my ancient ancestors' ruined citadel on the Athens Akroplois, my chest might heave with emotion. But what does that tell us about my ancestors, or their building of the Akropolis (or even about whether they were my ancestors in the first place)? What information can you get from reports of an emotional state, other than that someone reports an emotional state?

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Second, when I say I trust these reporters it's because I don't have access to more authoritative information or analyses, but I still maintain a reasonable skepticism. I just finished reading this (one of the references in the wikipedia article): Petitto, L. A., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1979). On the evidence for linguistic abilities in signing apes. Brain and Language, 8(2), 162-183. Quick version: Patterson's research with Koko was poorly documented and does not stand up to scrutiny. For instance, instead of compiling a corpus of Koko's utterances she presented only individual examples. This makes it impossible to know whether an utterance reported as being in context in a specific situation was actually as claimed- because we have no idea how often Koko signed the same utterance in different contexts [the article needs Elsevier access. See my profile email if you have questions]. It is possible to find many more examples of strong criticisms of Patterson's research with Koko, as well as other similar research (Gardner and Gardner with Washoe and Terrace and Bever with Nim Chimpsky). Basically, I don't think there's anyone who thinks apes have shown any linguistic ability (well, apes except for humans, of course). >> Regarding the authenticity of your anecdote (...) Well, it is exactly the authenticity of my anecdote that is what a scientific analysis would need to determine. Our ability to empathise is not questioned. The question is whether we can use reports of our feelings as evidence to make claims about the nature of reality. If I visit my ancient ancestors' ruined citadel on the Athens Akroplois, my chest might heave with emotion. But what does that tell us about my ancestors, or their building of the Akropolis (or even about whether they were my ancestors in the first place)? What information can you get from reports of an emotional state, other than that someone reports an emotional state?