3 ms·

But it isn't "assume nothing", because it's just a different assumption. Science doesn't treat each new human person as if they were not conscious. Science work

by titzer 5y ago

But it isn't "assume nothing", because it's just a different assumption. Science doesn't treat each new human person as if they were not conscious. Science works off reasonable inferences all the time. We reasonably assume that a full-looking bag is full, that big objects are heavy, that snakes are dangerous. I think it is reasonable to assume that domesticated animals are at least somewhat intelligent. After all, they convinced us to shelter, protect and feed them!

whatshisface 5y ago
There is an even simpler answer to your question than the ones other, very good, comments are pointing out. All of the scientists who unquestioningly believed that dogs could tell the difference didn't do this study. All of the scientists who unquestioningly believed dogs couldn't, didn't do this study. All studies are done by whichever members of the scientist population don't believe the affirmative or the negative.
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  I don’t think this is right either. All studies are done by scientists who are desperate to get published and have their work referenced. Even a cursory glance at that corner of funny-cute-etc-animals YouTube videos will convince that animals, especially mammals, have at least very complex internal and social lives.
throwaway09223 5y ago
This study isn't treating dogs as if they were not conscious or intelligent. It's isolating a particular aspect of intelligence to determine if it exists in a particular fashion. In this case, the question of if and how dogs are aware of human agency. This is a very interesting question. The exact same falsifying process is used with studies about humans. Using these processes we've significantly changed our understanding of human cognition in the last century so it seems like it's working! No one's suggesting that dogs or people aren't intelligent. The question is exactly how this intelligence functions, because there are many ways to reach a particular conclusion.

by titzer 5y ago

whatshisface 5y ago

There is an even simpler answer to your question than the ones other, very good, comments are pointing out. All of the scientists who unquestioningly believed that dogs could tell the difference didn't do this study. All of the scientists who unquestioningly believed dogs couldn't, didn't do this study. All studies are done by whichever members of the scientist population don't believe the affirmative or the negative.

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
I don’t think this is right either. All studies are done by scientists who are desperate to get published and have their work referenced. Even a cursory glance at that corner of funny-cute-etc-animals YouTube videos will convince that animals, especially mammals, have at least very complex internal and social lives.

throwaway09223 5y ago

This study isn't treating dogs as if they were not conscious or intelligent. It's isolating a particular aspect of intelligence to determine if it exists in a particular fashion. In this case, the question of if and how dogs are aware of human agency. This is a very interesting question. The exact same falsifying process is used with studies about humans. Using these processes we've significantly changed our understanding of human cognition in the last century so it seems like it's working! No one's suggesting that dogs or people aren't intelligent. The question is exactly how this intelligence functions, because there are many ways to reach a particular conclusion.