Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 151 of 165 (448118)
01-12-2008 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Percy
01-11-2008 6:57 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 01-11-2008 6:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 9:04 AM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 157 by Quetzal, posted 01-12-2008 9:34 AM sinequanon has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 152 of 165 (448121)
01-12-2008 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Percy
01-11-2008 6:57 PM


Percy writes:
  • 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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 01-11-2008 6:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by molbiogirl, posted 01-12-2008 8:45 AM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 9:19 AM sinequanon has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 153 of 165 (448134)
01-12-2008 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 6:17 AM


When the going gets tough...
...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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 6:17 AM sinequanon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 165 (448137)
01-12-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 6:39 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 6:39 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 9:55 AM Modulous has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 155 of 165 (448140)
01-12-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 5:57 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 5:57 AM sinequanon has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 156 of 165 (448144)
01-12-2008 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 6:17 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 6:17 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 9:38 AM Percy has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 157 of 165 (448147)
01-12-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 5:57 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 5:57 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 9:43 AM Quetzal has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 158 of 165 (448149)
01-12-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
01-12-2008 9:19 AM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 9:19 AM Percy has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 159 of 165 (448152)
01-12-2008 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Quetzal
01-12-2008 9:34 AM


See Percy's post Message 155. He doesn't think I should respond to your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Quetzal, posted 01-12-2008 9:34 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 9:49 AM sinequanon has replied
 Message 162 by Quetzal, posted 01-12-2008 10:06 AM sinequanon has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 160 of 165 (448158)
01-12-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 9:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 9:43 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 10:17 AM Percy has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 161 of 165 (448159)
01-12-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Modulous
01-12-2008 8:48 AM


I disagree. But refer to Message 155. Percy would prefer I don't respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 01-12-2008 8:48 AM Modulous has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 162 of 165 (448162)
01-12-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 9:43 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 9:43 AM sinequanon has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 163 of 165 (448165)
01-12-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
01-12-2008 9:49 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 9:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 10:36 AM sinequanon has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 164 of 165 (448171)
01-12-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by sinequanon
01-12-2008 10:17 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by sinequanon, posted 01-12-2008 10:17 AM sinequanon has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 165 of 165 (448174)
01-12-2008 10:37 AM


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.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024