3 ms·

> Why is it so hard to believe that early humans possess these qualities? I's not. I don't think any of the involved scientists reject the idea right away. But

by stinos 3y ago

> Why is it so hard to believe that early humans possess these qualities? I's not. I don't think any of the involved scientists reject the idea right away. But that is besides the point. The point is to try and prove it in a scientific process so that we can know it, not merely believe.

mcpackieh 3y ago
The problem I see with this is that although not assuming something until you have strong evidence to 'prove' it is good policy for scientists, it's often not good policy for people in the general case. A scientist may struggle to rigorously define nebulous concepts like 'love' in an empirical manner, and will particularly resist applying such terms to the behavior of non-human animals. They call doing so anthropomorphism, and rail against it. It's not scientific to assume dogs have human emotions, so they need to be careful about incorporating such assumptions into their scientific work. But then you get laymen picking up on this and saying things like "love is a human emotion and dogs aren't human. what seems to be love to you is merely food-seeking behavior." But this is not the appropriate way for dog owners to think about their dogs. In everyday contexts, people should be making these sort of intuitive assumptions about the way other people and animals feel, even though they aren't necessarily scientific beliefs.
- stinos 3y ago
  I don't quite agree. In fact I'd argue what would be good policy for more people would be more of a scientific, skeptical, realistic mindset and definitely not less. And the argument that goes like 'a scientist cannot use emotions (or whatever) because it cannot be scientifically explained' makes no sense. Could be that one key part you're missing is: when a scientist cannot easily prove something that doesn't make it non-existing nor unusable, but a scientist doesn't have to turn to belief for that: a scientist can simply admit to not knowing and not caring how something works yet use it, likewise scientists are allowed to make assumptions. It's just that they'll always realize it's an assumption. I'm for instance very well aware that my pets seem to love me and I know that me providing them food plays a big role in that and that it's likely (likeley, because assuming certain animals have no emotions would be equally wrong plus by now proven false already IIRC) very different kind of love than the one between humans. I fail to see how that is in any way not appropriate though. Despite realizing that the enjoyment of interaction between me and my pets is based on certain hormones being released in my body when I'm around them, my pets give me great joy, I do a lot for them, and I'm grieving for days if not weeks if one of them passes away.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    What applies to dogs also applies to other humans. Do you go around 'not knowing' whether other people might be p-zombies, or do you normally operate under the assumption that other people have subjective qualia comparable to your own? Probably the latter. Little leaps of faith like these are necessary to avoid the tarpit of solipsism. And as for your dog, wondering if your dog really loves you or if he's just a piece of meat mimicking the appearance of love to get food is not a recipe for a healthy relationship with your dog. Avoiding the anthropomorphism of animals is important when you're actively researching animals. But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab.
    - stinos 3y ago
      do you normally operate under the assumption that other people have subjective qualia comparable to your own? Probably the latter. Not sure why you bring that up, because that is not really an assumption, it's almost the definition of a species. And otherwise: yes. But again: realizing that it would be an assumption is healthy, imo. But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab. Sorry, but hard no. It's not even an attitude, it's realism. Can you please try to understand that it's perfectly possible to realize what anthropomorphism is at all times, yet at the same time take great care of pets and have a typical pet-human relationship?

by stinos 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago

The problem I see with this is that although not assuming something until you have strong evidence to 'prove' it is good policy for scientists, it's often not good policy for people in the general case. A scientist may struggle to rigorously define nebulous concepts like 'love' in an empirical manner, and will particularly resist applying such terms to the behavior of non-human animals. They call doing so anthropomorphism, and rail against it. It's not scientific to assume dogs have human emotions, so they need to be careful about incorporating such assumptions into their scientific work. But then you get laymen picking up on this and saying things like "love is a human emotion and dogs aren't human. what seems to be love to you is merely food-seeking behavior." But this is not the appropriate way for dog owners to think about their dogs. In everyday contexts, people should be making these sort of intuitive assumptions about the way other people and animals feel, even though they aren't necessarily scientific beliefs.

stinos 3y ago
I don't quite agree. In fact I'd argue what would be good policy for more people would be more of a scientific, skeptical, realistic mindset and definitely not less. And the argument that goes like 'a scientist cannot use emotions (or whatever) because it cannot be scientifically explained' makes no sense. Could be that one key part you're missing is: when a scientist cannot easily prove something that doesn't make it non-existing nor unusable, but a scientist doesn't have to turn to belief for that: a scientist can simply admit to not knowing and not caring how something works yet use it, likewise scientists are allowed to make assumptions. It's just that they'll always realize it's an assumption. I'm for instance very well aware that my pets seem to love me and I know that me providing them food plays a big role in that and that it's likely (likeley, because assuming certain animals have no emotions would be equally wrong plus by now proven false already IIRC) very different kind of love than the one between humans. I fail to see how that is in any way not appropriate though. Despite realizing that the enjoyment of interaction between me and my pets is based on certain hormones being released in my body when I'm around them, my pets give me great joy, I do a lot for them, and I'm grieving for days if not weeks if one of them passes away.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  What applies to dogs also applies to other humans. Do you go around 'not knowing' whether other people might be p-zombies, or do you normally operate under the assumption that other people have subjective qualia comparable to your own? Probably the latter. Little leaps of faith like these are necessary to avoid the tarpit of solipsism. And as for your dog, wondering if your dog really loves you or if he's just a piece of meat mimicking the appearance of love to get food is not a recipe for a healthy relationship with your dog. Avoiding the anthropomorphism of animals is important when you're actively researching animals. But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab.
  - stinos 3y ago
    do you normally operate under the assumption that other people have subjective qualia comparable to your own? Probably the latter. Not sure why you bring that up, because that is not really an assumption, it's almost the definition of a species. And otherwise: yes. But again: realizing that it would be an assumption is healthy, imo. But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab. Sorry, but hard no. It's not even an attitude, it's realism. Can you please try to understand that it's perfectly possible to realize what anthropomorphism is at all times, yet at the same time take great care of pets and have a typical pet-human relationship?