2 ms·
What part of the scientific method would you have them invoke to start from the assertion that the natural world is very intelligent while crafting experiments?
by Ensorceled 5y ago
What part of the scientific method would you have them invoke to start from the assertion that the natural world is very intelligent while crafting experiments?
When I accidentally stepped on my dogs paw as a teen, the dog looked hurt and disappointed. The same dog barked at my sister when she tried to stick a pencil up his nose.
Did the dog differentiate the scenarios based on intent or did it recognize my apologetic behaviour as non threatening? Or was it because my interactions with the dog were almost always positive while my sisters were not? Or simply because a pencil up the nose might have hurt a lot? Or because it was a hunting dog and we had hunted together multiple times? Was the dog actually disappointed in me or had they evolved to fake that by adjusting their eyebrows to this situation? Or did I project that emotion?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pxc 5y ago> Did the dog differentiate the scenarios based on intent or did it recognize my apologetic behaviour as non threatening? Apologetic behavior is a pretty good post-facto signal of intent! Humans also rely on it with each other. So I'm not sure that relying on sort of secondary signals like that is a real problem for the theory that dogs can read and care about human intent.