Are learned and innate the only types of behaviors?

The point wasn't about whether or not you know the correct answer. The point was that Joe Average's common sense usually gets it wrong. Again, the point isn't what you yourself know, but that Joe Average's common sense usually gets this wrong. And it isn't because he's thinking about fluid dynamics. Even when the question is phrased properly, "Ignoring air resistance and horizon effects, if a bullet is dropped at the same time and from the same height as one fired horizontally from a gun, which hits the ground first," Joe Average will almost always give the wrong answer.If the common sense of Joe Average were so wonderfully accurate everybody would be a scientist.--Percy

But attempting an explanation of why Joe Average's common sense often yields the wrong answer doesn't change the fact that his common sense is usually useless. In other words, arguments by laypeople that begin, "Common sense tells us..." aren't worth much.--Percy

Scientists also use the evidence of their own eyes, but because science is a collective activity, many other scientists have to see the same evidence with their own eyes before something can become accepted as a verified phenomenon.--Percy

Scientific papers are written for other scientists using the specialized terminology of the particular field. Scientific papers are not popularized science books written for the lay public. These books are written in order to make understandable what is otherwise unintelligible and largely inaccessible in the technical literature. Laypeople who want to understand scientific papers properly must go through a period of familiarization first, at a minimum.--Percy

I'm considering the possibility that the further I walk away from the park bench where I left my iPod, the more likely it is to be stolen.Presumably you're wondering why I'm not considering the likelihood of theft decreasing as I walk further away?Maybe in the future you'll teach us to consider the possibility that weight loss follows increased food intake and that cars slow down when you stomp on the accelerator. --Percy

You're thinking of a different question than the one they were actually attempting to answer. The question you seem to think they were asking is, "Does increasing drop-height increase the likelihood that they'll lose the walnut before they can break and eat it?"As stated in the excerpt you quoted in your Message 89, the question they were actually asking was, "Do crows adjust drop height with respect to potential kleptoparasitism?"I think your question is at least as interesting, but it definitely seems outside the paper's topic area, which was the factors affecting prey-dropping behavior, not the success-rate of various prey dropping strategies.--Percy

I'm starting to lose the point in all the focus on details. Assuming you're correct about this paper and the other one, how does this support the premise of this thread that lay observations should trump scientific ones?--Percy

I'm having difficulty finding a connection between your premise and your line of argument. I keep going back to your OP. The documentary you mention can't be used as evidence because no one else can see it. Even if I fully accept your description of it, it just sounds like a typical documentary. I couldn't possibly count the number of documentaries I've turned off after less than 10 minutes because of what were either errors or gross simplifications so severe that they seemed like errors. There aren't that many good documentaries on television.After reading just the first three paragraphs of your OP, I had the impression that you'd be arguing differently then you actually are, that you would be introducing examples like this:

• If you see a ghost and scientists say there's no such thing as ghosts, are you going to believe scientists or your own eyes?
  ​
• If you see a UFO and scientists say it was swamp gas, then are you going to believe scientists or your own eyes?
  ​
• If you're thinking of a friend you haven't heard from in a long time, and the friend calls you a minute later, are you going to believe scientists' claims of coincidence or your own experience?
  ​
• If you see rock layers in the Grand Canyon that look like a flood deposited them, are you going to believe scientists that they were deposited over millions of years or your own eyes?
  ​
• If you see new species appear suddenly in the fossil record, then are you going to believe the scientific explanation of the rarity of fossilization or what you see happening in the layers?

Those are the kinds of examples I expected you'd offer.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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

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. 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

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

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

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