|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I'm having difficulty finding a connection between your premise and your line of argument. I keep going back to your OP. What I see with my own eyes tells me that learned and evolved behaviours are NOT the only options for behaviour. Therefore, I reject the conclusion of the paper that they have demonstrated that the crows learned or evolved the said behaviour. That is not to be confused with the assertion, "I think the behaviour is NOT evolved or learned". As the paper has not investigated the reasons for the behaviour at all, I take as possible ALL options for behaviour that I have personally observed. I use another finding (about kleptoparasitism) from the same paper to demonstrate that very spurious results are not confined to documentaries. The peer review process, as someone brought up, does not convince me to accept scientific findings in preference to what I observe myself.
I don't think we'll convince you that the problems you think you're finding in those papers are either trivial or don't exist, but it doesn't seem like a significant enough issue to even try, plus your arguments are unpersuasive on their face and don't really need active rebuttal. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Modulous agrees with you he will be more than happy to leave my 'trivial examples and unpersuasive arguments that don't need active rebuttal' to speak for themselves, safe in the belief that no one will be persuaded. Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Percy writes:
I don't know what the definition of a ghost is. But I would believe my own observation if I encountered an apparition in the sense of something observable but not 'substantial'. It is difficult to comment on the hypothetical UFO case. If I saw little green men come out etc. I would definitely reject the scientific explanation, or accept it only as a possible part of the explanation. If there were no other witnesses I would tend to reject any other finding. In the case of the friend calling, of course I would believe my own experience. It does not in itself conflict with the scientific'explanation' (or lack thereof). But I do not believe in the notion of coincidence. Edited by Admin, : Put quote codes around the quoted portion from Percy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
...the tough get going. To another thread!
It finally dawned on me this morning that when cornered, you, for all intents and purposes, abandon the thread and start a new one. Spiders are intelligent. 12/30-01/07. Your own eyes. 01/07-01/12. It's like clockwork.
Message 1. I'm taking bets. How many days until Sin's real agenda is revealed (there is no such thing as evolution) and he starts a new thread? My money's on 01/18.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think that is a good place simply to agree to disagree? Well, that's how philosophy often ends up. I was contrasting pure rationalism with rational empiricism.
In my experience it is possible I think that rational empiricism is perfectly possible in the case I described, but pure rationalism with no empiricism isn't. Still, you're right in that it is a philosophical issue that isn't going to be quickly resolved, so we might as well just leave it there.
It is in the model. P can be any function of h. They happen to have picked and examined 3 cases, but the model covers all cases. "It" is not in their model, where 'it' is PL going down as height increases. That simply isn't there at all. Their model covers three possibilities (wrt kleptoparasitism): PL going up linearly as height increases, no PL at all and PL not increasing with height. It doesn't cover PL going down as height increases - it really really doesn't. I'm sure you don't think it does, and you are just misunderstanding what is being talked about. I'm just trying to clarify now what I actually said.
If P varies with h but is approximately constant, for example, then the optimum drop height/maximum loss probability curve will lie close to the upper curve shown in figure 5. Yes, I anticipated that might be what you were trying to say, and that is why I wondered if you had a preferred way of calculating PL(h) you would care to share with us. More importantly to the point, does your method of calculating PL(h) do better at predicting the relative behaviour of the crow-walnut system than theirs does in Paper II? Part of their model is the linear increase in PL with increased height, so you will need to modify their model to get results different than is shown in that graph. So far, you seem to be saying that The paper does not just suggest that the crows learned the behaviour or that it is an evolved unlearned behaviour, but you also suggest that it is possible that it is an unevolved unlearned behaviour. At this time you have been unable to come up with an unevolved unlearned behaviour that is actually suggested by the contents of the paper. The paper makes an anthropocentric gaffe in not considering that the crows engaged in pure rationalism to move towards an optimum height. This is a philosophical issue that, whilst unresolved is mostly not held by the philosophical community. Ethologists are not going to start postulating it as a suggested possibility any time soon. The paper has some kind of potential error in one of its probability calculations. No better calculation has been presented. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Sinequanon,
This thread should be in the [forum=-11] forum, not here in the [forum=-14], and it should have gone through the thread approval process. Supposedly your topic asks whether what you see with you own eyes is superior to what scientists say, but what you're actually discussing is learned vs. innate behavior, which has nothing in common with the thread's topic beyond that most certainly much of the data gathering is visual. If all research that includes some form of visual data gathering is fair game for this thread then there's almost nothing that's off-topic, and we prefer not to allow threads like that.
sinequanon writes: What I see with my own eyes tells me that learned and evolved behaviours are NOT the only options for behaviour. A determination of whether a behavior is learned or innate, or whether there are other origins of behavior, is definitely not something that you determine by a simple visual observation. It requires mounds of evidence, detailed analytical study, and a great deal of interpretation. It definitely is not a simple question of, "Should I believe scientists or my own eyes." A discussion of the origins of behavior belongs in one of the science forums, not here, and the title and opening post should make clear the boundaries of discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I guess the key question is what kind of thought process should someone like yourself go through when considering possible interpretations of observations of an unusual or unexpected phenomenon.
Let's say you see what appears to be a ghost or a UFO. Presumably you're aware of the history of claims surrounding such phenomena, and you're at least somewhat aware of the scientific research regarding the ways in which interpretation of visual stimulus can go astray. So how do you think your way through these considerations to arrive at a conclusion such as, "Nope, the scientists are wrong, UFO's (in the sense of aliens from outer space) exist and I just saw one." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I'm not trying to jump on you here. Rather I'm genuinely curious to learn what other type of behavior the paper might represent. You say:
What I see with my own eyes tells me that learned and evolved behaviours are NOT the only options for behaviour. Therefore, I reject the conclusion of the paper that they have demonstrated that the crows learned or evolved the said behaviour. If those two possibilities mentioned AREN'T in fact the only possibilities, what is the other (or others, for that matter)? Is there a way to distinguish this third (or however many) possible explanations for the behavior in question from the "assumed" evolved/learned? Could be an interesting discussion after all. A positive answer would go a long way toward clarifying your OP, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Please refer to Message 151 which explains the relevance. Modulous has chosen to defend the position. If you want me to stop responding to his defense, let me know.
The thread is not a focus on whether all behaviour is evolved or learned. See Message 152. I have answered three of the question you have posted yourself. (I have no experience close enough to the other two).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
See Percy's post Message 155. He doesn't think I should respond to your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Sinequanon,
I think a discussion of the origins of behavior belongs in one of the science forums, not here. Just propose a new thread over at [forum=-25]. The title and opening post should make clear the boundaries of discussion, but you can work that out with the moderators. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I disagree. But refer to Message 155. Percy would prefer I don't respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I dunno. My opinion would be that in order to defend the premise in the OP, or at least as it has evolved in the subsequent discussion concerning the crow behavior paper, it would be appropriate to talk specifics about how the assumptions in the paper lead to erroneous conclusions that are contradicted by (in this case your) personal observations. That, in fact, the assumptions noted are symptomatic of a widespread "blind spot" in scientific research, of which the paper is an example. To do that, of course, you'd have to come up with specifics as I asked.
On the other hand, Percy owns the joint, and if he feels it is off-topic, then by Darwin it is. Are you confident enough of your position to open a more rigorously-defined thread in the science fora? If so, we can pursue the question there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I will not be taking up your invitation as I do not agree with your personal interpretation of my intention in this thread.
I will simply reply to anyone wishing to pursue the issue that there is no point in me responding to their post in relation to this thread, because Percy says "no", and would no doubt act as administrator to impose his position on the matter. I have responded to some of the sorts of questions you think are relevant here Message 152
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
sinequanon writes: I will not be taking up your invitation as I do not agree with your personal interpretation of my intention in this thread. I'm not insisting my interpretation is correct, and I'm not trying to stifle debate. My point is only that this *is* a science topic, and it should have gone through the thread proposal process where the topic you wanted to discuss could have been made clear in both the thread title and the opening post. What you've done is started a science discussion in the [forum=-14]. I'm not moderating this thread, I'm only playing the role of a topic nag, but since you're interpreting my comments made as a member as if I were moderating I'll change the title and move the thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread copied to the Are learned and innate the only types of behaviors? thread in the [forum=-5] forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
Edited by Admin, : Update thread title.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024