Are learned and innate the only types of behaviors?

For that you use citations. I don't see one. It's not a philosophical paper. It's a scientific paper. They have compounded any philosophical question into a scientific one by failing to use the obvious, simple word, 'know'. For a start, members of the public are presented with conclusions, not scientific papers or detailed context. A doctor gives you pills, not medical journals. Whichever way the public get to receive the information they are better off as seeing scientific conclusions as "pretty much" what happens, to quote your own phrase, plus the odd extras. That's the same sort of thing for which they criticise Joe Blow. That would simply open up the debate that should have been avoided. I know that things other than evolution and learning can alter behaviour. A tentative theory should not be slipped into the conclusion at all, especially when the obvious default wording is fine. That is circular. Now you are implying that we figure out what the real conclusions are from the rest of the paper rather than the conclusion. It is fairly obvious to me that they have drawn a totally unnecessary conclusion which is avoidable by default. Bad is an emotive word. I just prefer the evidence of my own eyes to what a scientist says "pretty much" happens.

quote:

---

I have similar regard for my memory.

---

Why?What do you know about how human memory works?

quote:

---

'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.

---

No.Before microscopes were invented, we couldn't actually see microorganisms, so the evidence of their existence was new. When Archaeopteryx fossils were found, that was new evidence that came to light that strengthened some paleontological theories and weakened others.There are more examples of this sort of thing, of course, and the point is that new evidence really is discovered all the time, in all fields.

quote:

---

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'.

---

I think you are getting hung up on your emotional reaction to a turn of phrase. Sometimes scientists miss things, yes, but are you saying that all scientists, many with differing and competing interpretations of the evidence fail to see?

Because I see myself as a whole, not a synthesis of abstract functions. Do you really mean to ask what I know about the scientific model used to describe the concept of memory? ...was new to "we" (scientists?). All you are saying is that it isn't evidence until "we" have seen it "our" way. Others may have determined for themselves the existence of microorganisms in other ways. It can happen.Who sounds emotional, you or I?

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

Once again, you don't need to cite every single discovery that yours
depends on. It would get rather tedious to see yet another evolutionary
paper with 'Origin of Species' and a list of 100s of subsequent landmark
papers, don't you think? As I said, I don't think using 'know' clarifies things or makes them less
confusing. There are different ways of wording the sentence without using
'evolved', 'learned' or 'know'. However, I still don't see what the
problem is with the conclusion as it is written. The evidence they present
does suggest that the crows have evolved or learned the ability to
pick optimum heights for prey dropping. Once again, if you think there is
a significant alternative that the authors have ignored, let us know. So what you are saying is, that when scientists are writing papers to be
assessed by their peers, they must also make sure they don't cause
confusion with untrained members of the public? Sounds a bit silly to me.
Once again 'pretty much' was an informal answer I gave you in response to a
question you asked me about human skill acquisition. It isn't actually
relevant to the paper - the concept of human acquisition is something you
claim they would handle differently which was your original proposed gaffe.If you want to know what the paper says, you could just read it.This suggests that these crows have evolved or learned to maximize the energy obtained from each dropped walnut.It doesn't say, "this proves that crows have acquired this knowledge
through learning or evolution." and it doesn't mean to either. It just
looks like you are reading way more into it than is necessary in order to
induce a misunderstanding. I agree that some members of the public do
this, but I don't think scientists should make sure they avoid
potential misunderstandings of this nature when presenting discussion
amongst themselves. If they were writing a book, or giving a presentation
to the public - maybe (but only maybe) you'd have a point. Would you care to simply give an example of one of these things which is
capable of not only altering behaviour, but altering behaviour towards some
engaging in some optimum fashion. Let's try it: "This suggests that these
crows have evolved, learned or ?????????? to maximise the energy obtained
from each dropped walnut". If by listing the two things which they
consider the paper to suggest they have provided a target to shoot at. If
you can tell us either it doesn't suggest learning/evolving solutions OR if
it could also suggest some other serious consideration, you have
successfully shown the paper to potentially be in error.So what is your overall point here? That scientists don't use language in
the literature that can easily be digested without misunderstanding by the
public? I don't think that is in question. What has this got to do with
the topic, though? Not at all, I am implying we look at the conclusion of the paper to find
that out. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you point out to me where in the
conclusion I can find a statement to the effect that 'what we pretty much
find is that human skills are either evolved or learned'. Here is the last
part of the conclusion, for your ease and the ease of others that may be
following the argument:

quote:

---

Our model predicted that if birds maximize the energy obtained from
each dropped food item, they should take into account the intensity of
kleptoparasitism, the likelihood of each item breaking given its hardness
and previous weakening, and the hardness of the substrate. American crows
adjusted the height from which they dropped walnuts as our model predicted,
if they were accounting for each of these factors. Crows did not behave as
predicted with regard to the mass of a walnut. The mass of each walnut may
be harder to assess quickly than a constant or gradually changing
characteristic such as substrate hardness or intensity of kleptoparastism.
Overall, we were successful in predicting many qualitative aspects of
walnut-dropping behavior by American crows. This suggests that these crows
have evolved or learned to maximize the energy obtained from each dropped
walnut. Thus, American crows feeding on walnuts, and avian prey-dropping in
general, provides an excellent system for future studies of the ontogeny of
a complex behavior and the process of prey assessment.

---

Just to be clear: You asked me a specific question about my position on
human skill acquisition. I answered that you had pretty much summed up my
position. This is not dealt with in the paper about crow behaviour so we
wouldn't expect to find it in the paper's conclusion. The conclusion (I assume you mean the actual conclusion, and you've just
gotten confused, correct me if I'm wrong) seems pretty solid to me, and I
don't see why it is unnecessary or why one would desire to avoid it. That
is what their data suggests. Once again, if you think they've missed
something important you might demonstrate to my satisfaction that the paper
is erroneous. If this is the kind of thing you started your OP to
demonstrate, then it is already known that scientific papers are not
gospel. And does the evidence of your eyes suggest that the crows adjust their
prey-dropping behaviour based on substrate, kleptoparasitism, prey type,
and number of drops in such a fashion as to approach something close to a
theorized optimum height/number of drops - but fail to take into
consideration the mass of said prey?It seems that it took quite a bit more than just using the evidence of one
person's eyes to arrive at that conclusion, but maybe its just me. I'd
suggest it requires experimentation and mathematical model-building skills
which are generally not simply considered 'evidence of ones eyes'.But either way - if this is an example of you finding something to complain
about - I'd say things were looking pretty good.

quote:

---

Do you really mean to ask what I know about the scientific model used to describe the concept of memory?

---

There are many models used to describe how various kinds of human memory works.How much do you know about them?

quote:

---

It can happen.

---

Sure. But can you give an example of when it actually has happened?

For the record, I've been playing "football" (not american football) for as long as I could remember. This is the first I've heard of it. Well, I'd use the evidence of my own eyes as well in this particular case. How would you propose we go about using the evidence of our own eyes when we send probes to other planetary bodies? Actually, not many. The probes that were lost were due to unforeseen factors such as unexpected gravitational densities. As a matter of fact, off the top of my head I can't think of any major mission failure except for the failed mars mission a couple years ago, and that was due to program error (metric vs english). And I'm telling you that they don't. In order for them to actually grasp the concept of orbital mechanics, they first have to know how projectile motion works. Again, it is a frustration among people like myself when we have to deal with large numbers of people that don't actually understand projectile motion.Common sense is great for regular immediate things, but it is not very accurate for scientific inquiries. The heliocentric model didn't come about through common sense. Newton's laws didn't come about through common sense. In fact, he had to invent calculus in order to understand gravity.By the way, you do realize that it's impossible for one to see the a probe or lunar module move toward its target, right? It moves at such incredible speed through such great distance that even if you can somehow "see" it for any substantial amount of time it would seem the probe is moving in a straight line.

Myself, I would modify that to say "...accepted by scientists...". Then I have no issue with it.

Most unwieldy indeed. The obvious citations may be left out, but should not be non-existent. Perhaps you could oblige? Just post any relevant citation that they could have used in this case. You've missed the point. Perhaps it is a little subtle. A conclusion should be worded clearly so that anybody who does not have access to the full details knows what is being concluded. 'Informal' answers are very handy for sabotaging lines of argument. What is your formal answer? I need it to demonstrate the weakness in your position.Are you saying that all natural skills are evolved?Would you say all human skills are either evolved or learned? Wrong. I refer to the conclusion that the behaviour was evolved or learned. We can proceed once you have supplied a citation (which perhaps you feel would have cluttered up the article). I think you are ignoring the crucial point, "conflicted with a vicarious account". Perhaps you should read the OP again.There is no conflict with what I have observed. I noticed affects of substrate, kleptoparasitism, and item loss. I didn't conclude any optimal height so there could be no conflict with their theory on that count.

Acupuncture

I think you are still confusing eyewitness evidence with "common sense". I am talking of things thati) We actually see.
ii) Conflict with scientific findings.I am not talking about layman calculations or speculation. You are probably only including missions and high profile experiments. There must have been lots of test probes and test experiments used in refining theory.

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

All I am saying is that there should be a simple to follow audit trail to the facts. Reading the conclusion in this example I could be left with the impression that the experiment included some test relating to evolution and learning.If a scientist does an experiment and finds the earth is round, the conclusion should say, "the earth is round", not, "the earth cooled into a round form".It would be worse if I am then unable to find any convincing evidence that the round form had anything to do with cooling". But it could become 'evidence by repetition'.

Simple question. Do you doubt the existence of nitrogen in our atmosphere?

What you ask is impossible in many areas. I could explain with mathematical equations how quantum computers work. But there is no way in hell I can do it simply enough for a lay person to understand. In order to have a minimal elementary understanding of it, you need to understand quantum mechanics first and high level calculus. How exactly do you propose we go about convincing the public that quantum computers work without saying "just take our word for it"? Or do you doubt the existence of quantum computers?