Are learned and innate the only types of behaviors?

If what you saw with your own eyes (or observed directly in any other way) conflicted with a vicarious account from a "highly respected" scientist in a "highly respected" scientific journal, which would you believe? Yourself, or the scientist?What if you were someone with no scientific background whatsoever. Which should you believe?I would always believe the evidence of my own eyes. Some people would be amazed at how easily experts can misinterpret observations or rely on weak assumptions.For example, I recall a documentary showing a species of crow dropping snails onto rocks to crack the shells. The scientists in the program claimed that this behaviour was a unique development particular to a small colony of crows at the remote island location where they were filming. However, I see crows and gulls do this regularly in my bustling neighbourhood. To notice, it is only necessary to be a little more observant than the average zombie.That is a clear cut example, but more subtle ones make me doubt many published scientific findings.Edited by Admin, : Change title.

Scepticism is in order, but some evidence are fairly categorical. This is especially the case where a scientist claims X doesn't happen and you observe X happening. However there are more subtle situations...In message 94 of http://EvC Forum: Spiders are intelligent -->EvC Forum: Spiders are intelligent It may seem a very reasonable assumption to make. Note the word 'obviously'.Now, in my experience, different animals see glass very differently. I can stand a couple of feet behind a double glazed window, and my neighbours' cats would not be as quick to pick me out as my neighbour's 5-year-old.I can stand six inches behind a double glazed window, in "full view" of a sparrow hopping on the ledge outside and within touching distance. If I don't move it won't pick me out. Try it. It's a very simple experiment that anyone can do. Most people won't. If the window wasn't there, such behaviour would be extremely remarkable.OK. Then I try to scare away a bug that has landed on the ledge outside, or startle a spider in a web on the window. I wave my arms about like crazy and rap on the window. It doesn't shift. I don't know if it depends on the type of bug, but some cannot detect my presence from behind the window. Anyone can try that, too. Most people won't.Then I'm told that spiders and bugs "obviously" see a window as an open space.This is just one example, but scientific observations of animals in general are littered with anthropocentric gaffes.

I don't have to sit long to do this. I hear a sparrow on the ledge, I get up and creep up to the window and get within 6 inches of the bird, usually a sparrow or starling. Being very conservative, I can do this over 75 per cent of the time.But, in any case, the point is that 'open spaces' don't relect sunlight usually. I've seen that. I immediately took a look around and spotted a tercel. But they were arguing that spiders don't have the 'intelligence' to do that. The main point was about anthropocentric assumptions, but it is interesting to note that you do not expect scientific rigour from the very people who are baying for it.

Actually, that is not the problem. The point would be that Newton's laws of motion would not apply in your frame of reference, as it would be non-inertial. You'd soon know if you were sitting in a Rollercoaster, though.

What I mean is that you can choose any "middle of things" that you want. The "middle of things" is relative to a model or framework. Models in geophysics or ballistics can have the earth in the "middle of things", and use a set of non-Newtonian laws. The observer can find a set of laws to satisfy his frame of reference. Newton's laws turn out to be the simplest.Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

It is quite possible that scientific findings are spiced up for public consumption. The peer-reviewed scientific literature may be more exacting. Are scientists not responsible for ensuring that their findings are reported fairly, or are "other considerations" (read funding) deemed more expedient?

But I don't see many scientists jumping up and down to try and rectify this. Things may have changed since my research days, but I do remember some very 'creative' budget management techniques and submissions for funding. Some (and I tend to agree that much) of it is indeed a result of confusion. At best it may come down to terminology. When I read your example, I wondered what was meant by 'flying'. If the creature had wings then it would not be classified as a spider. But spiders can hang-glide on silk threads. In the end, I think the scientific classification 'spider' has to be taken loosely if used by Joe Blow. If he had said the creature had eight legs, wings and built webs, that would be another thing.In some cases, all that can be said is that scientists hold a different view.

I did a bit of searching, following Dr. Adequates post, and found this. Avian prey-dropping behavior. II. American crows and walnutsThe conclusion says

quote:

---

This suggests that these crows have evolved or learned to maximize the energy obtained from each dropped walnut.

---

But the paper is nothing to do with how the crows know. It just tests whether they know. Conclusion should instead say This suggests that these crows know how to maximize the energy obtained from each dropped walnut. It is very strange that they have slipped in evolution and learning as an explanation. You wouldn't do that for a human. A human may have "worked it out", eh?Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

Assuming that the elevator speed didn't change the theory says that, taking only constant gravitational forces into account, you will land at the same speed as you jumped (similarly with solid ground).For the case of a bullet however, it is not so simple. A bullet flies and initially the most important factors are fluid dynamics. For example, in the same way a pitched baseball can dip suddenly, so can a bullet.Now, you can wear your physicist hat and do mind experiments in a vacuum. Joe Blow, on the other hand, works only from experience. A football (as in soccer ) can hang in the air and does often indeed take longer to drop. But if asked passengers in a train what would happen if they dropped a coin out of a train window, more people would say the speed of the train is irrelevant.

Firstly, Taz asked if I care to take a guess, so I did.My other point is that Joe Blow does not do hypothetical mind experiments. He tends to work from experience. He does not usually see bullets flying through a vacuum unless he's been lighting up the dodgy stuff.

I find this question self-contradictory.You seem to imply 'worked it out' would be to anthropomorphise crows. Do you mean to imply this?

Are you saying that all natural skills are evolved?Would you say all human skills are either evolved or learned?

They sometimes correct their interpretations years later and explain where they went wrong.

I have similar regard for my memory. Talking about 'trust' may raise philosophical questions about truth on which I think we would substantially differ. 'Comes to light', is scientific rhetoric for 'I now recognise'. But phrased in the former pompous way the scientist is able to include everyone in his original blindness. When I learn something new I say just that, I never say that something new has 'come to light'. I am the one looking. I see the evidence or I fail to see it. The evidence isn't looking for me and 'coming to light'. That would depend on the individual. But you seem to beg the question. Similarity to scientific method is not in my opinion a basis for 'validity'. Usefulness of outcome is.

I agree. I don't really value 'common sense'. But I do value the evidence of my own eyes.Joe Blow usually does not analyse a problem in the way a scientist would. He may not analyse at all. His approach is different. He cannot be expected to give answers to the interim steps of a scientific model as if that were the only route to a useful answer.If Joe Blow phoned in and said he'd seen with his own eyes a bullet in a vacuum falling in a particular way, I would indeed be sceptical. The evidence Joe Blow sees would have, at least, to be something I could imagine doing.I wonder who you would call if you were learning to pitch a baseball. A trainer or an expert in fluid dynamics? In football who would you get to train the quarter back or the field punter (if that's the correct term) to optimise the flight of the ball?