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 analyzes the various studies and their disagreements and finds that studying animal cognition has not to date provided conclusive links with human cognition. Indeed, such links may be impossible to prove.
Charles Darwin, whom Konrad Lorenz (1965) calls "the greatest of all discoverers in the field of biology" (p. x), established theories of evolution and natural selection that continue to inform and affect subsequent thinking in all branches of science. Lorenz argues, "The b...