Animal Behavior
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This paper defines and reviews the basis for philosophical debates surrounding the field of animal behavior and its validity as a study of nonhuman cognition. Scientists have continually been fascinated with defining the differences between being human and being another species of animal. Science has defined the difference in numerous ways, from the ability to make and use tools to the knowledge of good and evil. As science continues to advance, however, the characteristics that distinguish human beings have to be reassessed constantly. Biologists, seeking to advance knowledge of human biology, learn from studying animals how biological organisms function in general. Even pet owners study their animals in an attempt to understand themselves better. Examining animal behavior is an extremely useful way to understand the behavior of human beings, and one of the most intriguing lines of inquiry is the examination of animal cognition. By trying to decide whether animals think, and, if so, how and about what, scientists can begin to understand more about human cognition. Studying animal cognition can help determine how to define the concepts of "rational thought," "conscious thought," and "understanding," as well as deciding what learning signifies. Yet some scientists still argue that proving whether animals think is impossible and pointless. They contend that the study of animal behavior is a valid line of inquiry only in and of itself. This paper disagrees strongly
. . .
nal systems does imply rational cognition, it makes some scientists uncomfortable. Griffin (1993) contends that the concept of intentional systems "has been quietly dropped from ethology in recent years" (p. 55) as some scientists have become less willing to attribute beliefs and attitudes to animals. He expresses the "hope that the revival of scientific interest in animal thinking will lead cognitive ethologists to study whether [expressions of intentional systems in animals] are accompanied by conscious intentions" (p. 55).
The reluctance of some scientists to use the intentional systems concept for animal behavior study is related to some of the most common mistakes observers tend to make. Because studies are always carried out by humans, the equation is always lopsided: "All scientific endeavors, including ethological research, involve asymmetrical relationships between humans and their animal charges and are either theory laden or value laden, or both, to some degree" (Bekoff, 1991, p. 27). Anthropomorphism, the tendency to attribute human characteristics to the creatures being studied, can be the greatest danger in examining animal behavior as a means of gaining insight into human behavior. The observer tends to proj
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Dale Jamieson, Paul Churchland, Jerry Fodor, Charlie Brown, Donald Griffin, , Allen Newell, Bekoff Jamieson, Thomas Nagel, Charles Darwin, animal behavior, intentional systems, griffin 1993, staddon 1983, animal cognition, human cognition, studying animal, study animals, study animal behavior, dennet 1978, human behavior, concept intentional systems, studying animal behavior, study nonhuman cognition, bekoff jamieson 1991,
Approximate Word count = 3166
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Animal Behavior
|