38. Marc Beckoff, Animal Emtions, the Fox and the Hedgehog (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Guest: Dr. Marc Bekoff, University of Colorado biology professor, and author of, The Emotional Lives of Animals, discusses his research into animal emotions, and the controversy surrounding research suggesting animal consciousness.


Click here to read more ...

[Venom]

I listened to this episode and, well, Marc Beckoff said something like that "many anecdotal evidence is data" (quotation from memory, and in fact it was Alex quoting him) (meaning that many anecdotal evidence can according to him prove something), I knew for sure we where in the real of pseudoscience.

I mean, has I said before, I have a deep interrest about the ufo phenomena, and it's obvious when you're studying that field than you can have a looooot of anecdotal evidence, and it doesn't prove the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Why? Because humans are humans, and you have illusions, false memories, and so on.

I tought maybe for animals, but no. If it was true, the many sightings of Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot would be enough for proving the existence of it. And it doesn't.

So I think Marc Beckoff is completely wrong about that, and it's not the only thing. He's also wrong about the coming paradigme shift that psi-believers are waiting for so long (I mean, the spiritualist were already annoncing an imminent paradigme shift, so what, the soon-the-arrive shift is already more than 1 century old ).

Otherwise, some interresting stuff in this interview, but the way things are presentend are so simplistic sometimes, it gets on my nerves.

And by the way I hate when Alex finish his interview with some praysing like "this one a very nice and interresting interview" blablabla just because he's interviewing someone sharing his beliefs.

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I liked this podcast, and I was pleased that you dropped the flippant approach, but kept your own monologues - that I think are very relevant - after all, you have by now spent a lot of time studying the reasoning processes of researchers and skeptics in this area.

I thought that was an excellent interview with someone who clearly had a deep understanding of animal behaviour, even though he was not (as far as I could tell) working on 'paranormal' phenomena as such.

Your point about animal emotion being an almost inevitable consequence of evolution was right on the mark. It always used to frustrate me (nothing explicitly to do with the paranormal) that researchers would argue that Occam's razor meant that it was best to assume that only humans (and maybe the great apes) had consciousness. I remember some researchers actually used the 'definition' of consciousness as 'self awareness' to justify the claim that only those few animals that could recognise themselves in a mirror were conscious!

I do hope you continue to pop in the odd podcast like that - it helps to keep this place alive!

I am curious - how easy is it to find dogs that show potential Ψ-ability - I got the feeling from odd remarks of yours that maybe that was proving difficult.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am curious - how easy is it to find dogs that show potential Ψ-ability - I got the feeling from odd remarks of yours that maybe that was proving difficult.

David

It's been difficult. I've run across many folks who are quite convinced their dogs do this. But, finding superstar dogs that do it all the time, and owners who have the time and inclination to partipate in research, has been a challange.

[Venom]

About the "the plural of anecdote IS data" bullshit, I wanted also to comment on Marc Beckoff about looking for repetability and consistancy.

In the ufo phenomena, people argue sometimes that the phenomenum is "consistant", because you can find some "consistancy" between some of the testimonies.

2 remarks:

First of, often the consistency is in the eye of the beholder. If you look for consistency, you'll find some (but you forgot all the inconsistencies in the process).

Second, in fortean phenomena, consistencies can be explain by some process creating de phenomenum. That does'nt prove the fact that the phenomenum is paranormal.

For exemple, you can have a subset of "consistant" sightings of lights in the sky, because all this witness saw helicopters (I'm thinking of the Beligian ufo wave here). So the consistency doesn't prove that you're trully in front of alien spacecraft.

So, to resume my point, "the plural of anecdote IS data" is bullshit, and thinking that consistency and replication are enough for transforming anecdotal testimonies in data are even more bullshit.

Thanks again for a very entertaining show.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Venom

About the "the plural of anecdote IS data" bullshit, I wanted also to comment on Marc Beckoff about looking for repetability and consistancy.

Plural can mean more than 2. If there are great number of remarkably similar anecdotes by witnesses to such events under circumstances that effectively rule out alternate explanations and are simultaneously witnessed by more than one person and so on........ then science would be extremely foolish to dismiss these on a-priori grounds as having no substance....

Yes this is not quite scientific evidence but it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to gather data to consider various hypotheses worthy of further testing or experimentation. It is part of the scientific method.

I wanted also to comment on Marc Beckoff about looking for repetability and consistancy.

There is no law in science that an occurrence or effect can only be real if endlessly repeatable and consistent upon experimental demand. However looking for repeatability and consistency is an extremely useful and productive scientific method because what is most stable, most repeatable is also of most benefit to most people (e.g. a medicine might only work on some people, the better one is judged to work on more people) . But one should not confuse the success or seeking of only stable or predictable effects with 'reality' ...such classical like philosophy of science does not fit perfectly with quantum theory.

In the ufo phenomena, people argue sometimes that the phenomenum is "consistant", because you can find some "consistancy" between some of the testimonies.

2 remarks:

First of, often the consistency is in the eye of the beholder. If you look for consistency, you'll find some (but you forgot all the inconsistencies in the process).

I agree ... but when you read a science text book, unless you personally repeat every experiment, you take these upon the trust of the witnesses to these experiments. (Few of which experiments were blind or double blind in hard sciences, perhaps double blind testing is not essential in hard sciences but arguably it should be used in any disputed area). You have the choice of questioning everything you see on the TV news, read in newspapers and dismissing it as anecdotal .... you probably read the 'skeptics dictionary' like most sceptics do but this website mostly supplies anecdotal counter claims that would fail the criteria you would demand of evidence for psi.

The sceptic will justify their behavior with the catchphrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' which means little more than 'what I personally believe is plausible, requires less evidence than what I believe is implausible.' ... can people agree what is 'extraordinary' ?

However if the die-hard sceptic views an effect as impossible, providing enough contrary data is unlikely to ever be extraordinary enough.... they raise the bar, move the goalpost, etc. .....and if that fails they suggest something remarkably close to a conspiracy theory that being several reseachers must have cheated or lied ......without any extraordinary evidence whatsoever. The researcher may complain that these extraordinary debunker claims have no substance and to provide evidence what they claim actually could have occurred, but then the armchair debunker has been known to reply 'the burden of proof is on the claimant'

Second, in fortean phenomena, consistencies can be explain by some process creating de phenomenum. That does'nt prove the fact that the phenomenum is paranormal.

How can one prove the paranormal, if the debunker demands that only when the paranormal behaves normal (i.e. repeatable and consistent) should the paranormal be considered real?

[Open Mind]

BTW .... yet another good interview.

[stonesean]

Alex,

Though I tend to disagree with you more often than I agree, I've enjoyed the last couple episodes.

However, I found myself giving a couple sideways glances at the radio when Dr. Beckhoff chose to call what he witnessed the birds doing to the dead bird a "funeral" or when he referred to a mated pair of foxes as "married". I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was trying to describe events as simply as possible for the listeners, but the more he discussed the subject, the more I had my doubts....I'm assuming that's why you interrupted and inserted the statement to the effect that people CAN take these things "too far".

I mean, sure, I know my dog is happy to see me when I get home from work. But immediately after greeting me, my dog also rushes directly to her food bowl, and continues to travel between me and the bowl until I fill it, so I know exactly WHY my dog is glad to see me too....she doesn't want to share her thoughts and feelings....she simply wants food.....and the guy who gives her food, belly rubs, and a warm bed is home after being gone.....which in her mind, is a very happy event.....that's all.....

For a guy who claimed not to be thinking in anthropamorphic terms......Dr Beckhoff seemed to be pretty loose with his descriptions....

I won't hold my breath waiting for those current paradigms to crumble....

[David Bailey]

Stonesean,

I think it is easy to become a little too cynical and simplistic about animals - after all, we are part of the same evolutionary tree, so while it is dangerous to be too anthropomorphic, it is possible to go the other way.

Quite a lot of species mate for life - so whether you call it marriage is merely a question of semantics.

The reaction of a dog when you come home probably is a complex mixture of emotions - just as it is with us. For example, dogs often pine after their owner dies, even though they are still being fed!

Pet owners are often represented as being over-sentimental, but I suspect they get to know a lot about their animals that others miss.

Do you think your dog anticipates your return - if so, it might be fun to install a little camera and record what really happens!

BTW, I think you are new here - perhaps you would like to say a little about yourself and your interests and take on all this.

David