5 ms·

> We can only go by what we know and what we have evidence for There is nuance here, in the degree to which uncertainty due to lack of evidence is surfaced in

> We can only go by what we know and what we have evidence for There is nuance here, in the degree to which uncertainty due to lack of evidence is surfaced in scientific communications for the public. Take for instance, the behavior of dogs. Science cannot [yet] objectively answer the question of how much the subjective qualia of a dog is comparable to the qualia of humans. What then can we say about whether dogs feel 'love'? Some might say that science has not yet answered this question; that is fine. But others get overeager and assert that because science hasn't demonstrated that dogs feel love, the scientific position is to assume all apparent demonstrations of love from dogs are little more than elaborate food seeking behavior. This goes too far, it assumes a lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary, implicitly treating science as complete until proven otherwise. I think this overzealous sort of 'scientific' thinking reflects a dogmatic attitude which is actually antithetical to the real scientific method.

Spooky23 5y ago
It’s a great point. When you get to the edge of knowledge, ignoring obvious things and glossing over tends to rule the day. Knowing what we know about people, it seems absurd to think that people just went poof, “civilization” has arrived! There were a lot fewer humans in the past, and hundreds of generations are lost to time. But the narrative of the pageant of history, often leading to the <insert nation here> greatness of today doesn’t work with “I don’t know”
mc32 5y ago
Well, it would seem like the middle way would be to postulate things such as these but not assert them as 'received knowledge'. And just as we might postulate that dogs can experience love, we can also postulate the opposite and discuss both without giving one a preponderance of support till we can develop such support.
Cupertino95014 5y ago
- robonerd 5y ago
  I chose to use that word to preempt nitpicky objections about measuring oxytocin in dog brains (which doesn't actually tell you anything about the subjective experience the dog feels.) 'Qualia' refers specifically to the subjective conscious experience, which is something science is presently ill-equipped to answer questions about. The word 'qualities' does not have the same rhetorical effect. As an aside, what's the point of complaining about uncommon words? Dictionaries have never been more convenient to use. If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched.
  - vasco 5y ago
    > If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched. That was me and I was glad to learn it. Thanks for using it!
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  “qualia” are the internal experiences of sensory perceptions of the subject, “qualities” are the attributes of the subject. They look a bit similar, and are etymologically connected, but their denotations are about as far apart as is possible for words that are the same part of speech.
  - versteegen 5y ago
    Qualia are not limited to sensory perceptions. We have conscious experiences of things internal to our minds too, such as emotions and thoughts and memories and these too have qualia.
- Planktonne 5y ago
  Precise language is useful for discussing complex ideas precisely. If HN is to be a place for gratifying intellectual curiousity [1], then dismisisng dismissing accurate terminology as pretentious purely because it is unfamiliar is counter-productive. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dredmorbius 5y ago
There's strong evidence that some animals, at least, process visual stimuli similarly to humans, as illustrated by cats responding to the "rotating snakes" illusion: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CcXXQ6GCUb8 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CcXXQ6GCUb8 And if you pause to consider that emotions, particularly such core and foundational ones as love (maternal, partner, tribal) are all but certainly evolved, then existence of them or precursors in other species seems all but certain. That thought had occurred to Charles Darwin, who wrote a book on the question, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175687 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175687

Spooky23 5y ago

It’s a great point. When you get to the edge of knowledge, ignoring obvious things and glossing over tends to rule the day. Knowing what we know about people, it seems absurd to think that people just went poof, “civilization” has arrived! There were a lot fewer humans in the past, and hundreds of generations are lost to time. But the narrative of the pageant of history, often leading to the <insert nation here> greatness of today doesn’t work with “I don’t know”

mc32 5y ago

Well, it would seem like the middle way would be to postulate things such as these but not assert them as 'received knowledge'. And just as we might postulate that dogs can experience love, we can also postulate the opposite and discuss both without giving one a preponderance of support till we can develop such support.

Cupertino95014 5y ago

robonerd 5y ago
I chose to use that word to preempt nitpicky objections about measuring oxytocin in dog brains (which doesn't actually tell you anything about the subjective experience the dog feels.) 'Qualia' refers specifically to the subjective conscious experience, which is something science is presently ill-equipped to answer questions about. The word 'qualities' does not have the same rhetorical effect. As an aside, what's the point of complaining about uncommon words? Dictionaries have never been more convenient to use. If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched.
- vasco 5y ago
  > If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched. That was me and I was glad to learn it. Thanks for using it!
dragonwriter 5y ago
“qualia” are the internal experiences of sensory perceptions of the subject, “qualities” are the attributes of the subject. They look a bit similar, and are etymologically connected, but their denotations are about as far apart as is possible for words that are the same part of speech.
- versteegen 5y ago
  Qualia are not limited to sensory perceptions. We have conscious experiences of things internal to our minds too, such as emotions and thoughts and memories and these too have qualia.
Planktonne 5y ago
Precise language is useful for discussing complex ideas precisely. If HN is to be a place for gratifying intellectual curiousity [1], then dismisisng dismissing accurate terminology as pretentious purely because it is unfamiliar is counter-productive. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dredmorbius 5y ago

There's strong evidence that some animals, at least, process visual stimuli similarly to humans, as illustrated by cats responding to the "rotating snakes" illusion: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CcXXQ6GCUb8 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CcXXQ6GCUb8 And if you pause to consider that emotions, particularly such core and foundational ones as love (maternal, partner, tribal) are all but certainly evolved, then existence of them or precursors in other species seems all but certain. That thought had occurred to Charles Darwin, who wrote a book on the question, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175687 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175687