• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 410 0

the objects of their study to human presence through food provisioning. Major discoveries were made by these scientists, such as that chimpanzees live in well-delineated groups, and that they use lithic tools that, had they been associated with people, would have qualified them for the Stone Ageâ (p. 117). De Waal writes about Sugiyamaâs discovery of infanticide among langur monkeys: âThe discovery was ignored for about a decade, after which other reports of infanticide surfaced, first in other primates and eventually in many other animalsâfrom lions and prairie dogs to dolphins and birds. I have never witnessed such turmoil at primatological conferences as in the days when infanticide became a growing topic. Reports provoked shouting matches, accusations of inadequate evidence (most of it was postmortem), and utter disbelief that the same theories that speak of reproductive success could be enlisted to account for the annihilation of newbornsâ (pp. 184â85). See also Asquith (1986).

Â

P. 52: SKINNER

Skinner (1959) wrote: âPigeon, rat, monkey, which is which? It doesnât matter. Of course, these three species have behavioral repertoires which are as different as their anatomies. But once you have allowed for differences in the ways in which they make contact with the environment, and in the ways in which they act upon the environment, what remains of the behavior shows astonishingly similar propertiesâ (pp. 125â26).

Â

P. 52: THOMAS

The quote is from Thomas (1974, p. 12).

Â

P. 53: OCCAMâS RAZOR QUESTIONED

Oreskes et al. (1994) write: âIf two theories (or model realizations) are empirically equivalent, then there is no way to choose between them other than to invoke extraevidential considerations like symmetry, and elegance, or personal, political, or metaphysical preferencesâ¦Ockhamâs razor is perhaps the most widely accepted example of an extraevidential consideration. Many scientists accept and apply the principle in their work, even though it is an entirely metaphysical assumption. There is scant empirical evidence that the world is actually simple or that simple accounts are more likely than complex ones to be true. Our commitment to simplicity is largely an inheritance of 17th-century theologyâ (pp. 642â45). Hoffman et al. (1996) write in their essay âOckhamâs Razor and Chemistry:â âTime and time again the process of discovery in science reveals that what was thought simple is really wondrously complicatedâ (p. 123). Computer scientist Geoffrey Webb found that nine times out of ten computers using complex decision-making processes give more accurate results, and declared: âPeople are missing out on useful patterns because theyâre just looking for the simple ones. Occamâs razor influences and limits what science can do with informationâ (quoted in Discover, November 1996, p. 35). Theoretical cosmologist James Peebles (2003) writes: âEach time we formulate a hypothesis, we take the simplest one possible. But what obliges the Universe to be simple?â (p. 70).

Â

P. 53: ANTHROPOMORPHISM REHABILITATED

Cenami Spada (1997) writes: âIf animals are categorized as machines, only the terminology used to describe machines will sound adequateâ¦. If animals are not machines, we need to study to what extent similarities and differences with human behaviors can be drawn. In doing this we unavoidably refer to our experience: what else could we refer to when studying animals!â (pp. 43â44). The quote in the main text is from de Waal (2001, p. 40).

CHAPTER 5

P. 55: BEES HANDLE ABSTRACT CONCEPTS

See âThe concept of âsamenessâ and âdifferenceâ in an insectâ by Giurfa et al. (2001), who write: âOur results question the view that vertebrates, and in particular primates, may be the only animals able to form âsamenessâ or âodditiyâ concepts. They also show that higher cognitive functions are not a privilege of vertebratesâ(p. 932). Giurfa interviewed by Davidson (2001) declared: âI disagree with your characterization of this being a âlow-degreeâ of intelligence. In fact, it would be the opposite! (In the past) many researchers thought