3 ms·

Do you seriously think I am going to experiment with kicking my dogs and cats or stepping on their tails, for the sake of science? I love the dogs and cats tha

Do you seriously think I am going to experiment with kicking my dogs and cats or stepping on their tails, for the sake of science? I love the dogs and cats that I have the privilege of living with. So no, I'm not going to do that. Update: sorry I took some offense at your comment. Basically, I don't think this is a matter of science. Our dogs and cats are living, emotional creatures. As their human, it is my intuition and interaction with them that best teaches me how to provide them with a loving and happy home.

Ensorceled 5y ago
So you love your pets and treat them kindly and with affection, yet you are assuming that your pets behaviour when you do accidentally hurt them is due to an unproven ability to discern that it was an accident rather than simply learned behaviour that you are not a threat and, rather, a boon? Assumption is not science.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Or you could just watch cats and dogs for a while to see how clearly they understand the difference between friendly play, territorial grandstanding, and all-out war without needing accredited scientific legitimisation. Superficial casuistry isn't science either.
avianlyric 5y ago
Or you could just do what these scientists did, and test whether or not dogs were capable of recognising intent in scenarios that don’t involve harming them. Not sure why you would need to harm to test if they could understand intent.
lucb1e 5y ago
> I don't think this is a matter of science. Our dogs and cats are living, emotional creatures. If by that you mean that nobody should be experimenting by doing intentional harm to any animal which we can reasonably suspect to be able to experience pain then I agree. If you mean that emotions are beyond science to comprehend, then I'm curious why you think that is?
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  That is a great question, and I don't really have an answer. Perhaps I am being shortsighted. If I were to try to answer, TheOtherHobbes came closest to my feelings about it and explained better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28425288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28425288
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    Okay yeah that's way more philosophical than I was thinking. To me it's just neurons that fire and chemicals that are released in response to stimuli. That's the science part and the way we can iirc already recognize pain in brain scans. Or even just behavioral: you can observe how it alters its behavior depending on what the hurter does after hurting the animal. (Horrible as such a thing would be, it would still be science, even if we might choose not to use data obtained by extremely immoral research.)

Ensorceled 5y ago

So you love your pets and treat them kindly and with affection, yet you are assuming that your pets behaviour when you do accidentally hurt them is due to an unproven ability to discern that it was an accident rather than simply learned behaviour that you are not a threat and, rather, a boon? Assumption is not science.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Or you could just watch cats and dogs for a while to see how clearly they understand the difference between friendly play, territorial grandstanding, and all-out war without needing accredited scientific legitimisation. Superficial casuistry isn't science either.

avianlyric 5y ago

Or you could just do what these scientists did, and test whether or not dogs were capable of recognising intent in scenarios that don’t involve harming them. Not sure why you would need to harm to test if they could understand intent.

lucb1e 5y ago

> I don't think this is a matter of science. Our dogs and cats are living, emotional creatures. If by that you mean that nobody should be experimenting by doing intentional harm to any animal which we can reasonably suspect to be able to experience pain then I agree. If you mean that emotions are beyond science to comprehend, then I'm curious why you think that is?

Stratoscope 5y ago
That is a great question, and I don't really have an answer. Perhaps I am being shortsighted. If I were to try to answer, TheOtherHobbes came closest to my feelings about it and explained better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28425288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28425288
- lucb1e 5y ago
  Okay yeah that's way more philosophical than I was thinking. To me it's just neurons that fire and chemicals that are released in response to stimuli. That's the science part and the way we can iirc already recognize pain in brain scans. Or even just behavioral: you can observe how it alters its behavior depending on what the hurter does after hurting the animal. (Horrible as such a thing would be, it would still be science, even if we might choose not to use data obtained by extremely immoral research.)