Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Titanscape on 13/06/2006 02:34:07
-
It is amazing as to just how trusting the human species is. It is part of so many actions and interactions...! Other animals lack this greatly. Chimps for example lack trust. Trust in needed for civilisation...
<font color="green">Titanscape</font id="green">
-
Not sure where you get the notion that no animal but humans are capable of trust. Most dog owners would consider that their dogs show great trust in them. In fact, most pets, or domestic animals, will show some trust in those who care for them, but probably dogs are exceptionally so.
Chips, like humans, are social animals (albeit, they live in much smaller social groups, but then early humans also lived in smaller social groups), and have personal relationships with other members of the group that require as much trust as any human relationship.
Any animal where the parent(s) provide support for the young must have a relationship of trust between parent and child.
George
-
yes, that is a broad generalization. our trust is nothing in comparison to a pack of wolves.
just like usual, humans are no exceptional animal
-
I think it's true to say that most wild animals do not trust humans; nor do many trust others of their own or other species. However, there are plenty of examples of animals relying on one another's actions to survive.
Take meerkats as an example. They post sentries who act as lookouts while others tend the young. If those tending the young didn't trust the sentries, that system would never work.
Chimps when hunting rely on each other to take appropriate action at the appropriate time. They "trust" that the others will perform their duty. Without that group trust they would not be able to hunt in the manner they do.
Then there are wild creatures that seem to have an innate trust of humans - dolphins, for example; or even the robin in your back garden. Normally we would refer to this behaviour as "tame", but whatever name you give it there must be an element of trust involved.
Brand new forum at
http://beaverlandforum.y4a.net
More than just science
-
I once heard that Robins just have more guile than other birds..because they have to..
As for Humans having trust....hmmm...for me, being a right cynical git, trust needs to be earned either by display or personal experience, though I might tend to think that humans, although understand the nature of trust are inherently wary of each other.....but then...I may be projecting my personal prejudiced there.
However, as mentioned , I think (in MY opinion) that the rest of the animal kingdom do display trust, or if not natural in theirproclivity can mostly be tamed to display trust towards humans....
..as George states... domestic dogs just go ahead and display unconditional trust....as well as other household pets....(perhaps apart from a pet Hippo [:D]...as they are rude and never close the fridge ) they of course have no cognitive comprehension of the nature of trust, which, even for us, is just a term used to describe a feeling of integrity and reliance.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
Take meerkats as an example. They post sentries who act as lookouts while others tend the young. If those tending the young didn't trust the sentries, that system would never work.
What if it's not their ability to trust but instead their inability to lie?
-
All social animals rely on the assumption that others will play their part in collecting nectar, tending to the air conditioning, defending the nest, protecting the young, bringing down the prey, whatever. At the very least, most birds assume that one will forage and return whilst the other incubates the eggs. Indeed apart from sparrows, which seem exceptionally prone to adultery, humans are one of the least trustworthy species and even go to great lengths to elect professional liars and traitors to positions of authority.
-
apart from sparrows, which seem exceptionally prone to adultery, ......
Naturalists differentiate between social monogamy and sexual monogamy. Most birds are socially monogamous by staying together during breeding season and taking part in parenting - feeding or brooding young, feeding brooding partner. About 90% of birds are socially monogamous but a large proportion of those have what are called extra-pair copulations (EPCs) ie they play away. Apparently songbirds are more likely to do it.
-
It is amazing as to just how trusting the human species is. It is part of so many actions and interactions...! Other animals lack this greatly. Chimps for example lack trust. Trust in needed for civilisation...
<font color="green">Titanscape</font id="green">
I certainly do not agree that humans are a trusting species. In fact, any look at modern society shows nothing but distrust and its consequence, paranoia.
As to animals being trusting...…… I think that animals are cooperative rather than trusting. Animals are just naturally cooperative - until they come into contact with human beings for a long time.
Take chimps. Chimps have been studied by animal behaviourists such as Jane Goodall. To study her chimps, Jane Goodall actually stalked them - and I mean stalked, here. The chimps, while they demonstrated to Goodall every sign of requiring her to go away and leave them alone in peace, in the end had to resign themselves to her presence, to her flat refusal to leave them alone (and therefore to her psychologically damaging presence). Goodall, I think, drove her chimps nuts That they resigned themselves to her presence is, I think, down to animals being naturally cooperative, and not to trust.
-
LOL
If a group of chimps decided they didn't like Goodall, they could (and would) tear her apart- literally.
After all, they do it to other chimps.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/
...down to animals being naturally cooperative, and not to trust.
Cooperation are two sides of the same coin.
-
If a group of chimps decided they didn't like Goodall, they could (and would) tear her apart- literally.After all, they do it to other chimps.
Chimps behave like that because they have been driven nuts by behaviourist stalkers. When Goodall discovered such behaviour in chimps - and this only after at least 1 decade of observation i.e. of stalking the animals, - she did not link such behaviour to her own, albeit unwitting, treatment of her subjects. But the fact is quite simply this: if you or I were to be subjected to the same treatment as those chimps, we too would be driven nuts. One person stalking another person is a crime, after all, and this because it is acknowledged that being stalked induces mental ill-health.
-
Cooperation are two sides of the same coin.
I am sure they are related. For example, one can be cooperative with other people without necessarily trusting them.
-
We regularly get trolls and obsessed individuals posting on this forum.
- If they violate their cooperative agreement when they signed up, they get a warning.
- If they continue to be non-cooperative, they are expelled from the group.
- Trust, but verify!
Moderation, sanctions and exclusion are some tools that can be used to make the internet a safe (virtual) place.
This is better than allowing social media groups to turn on individuals, which has unfortunately sometimes led to social isolation, depression and suicide in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
-
Chimps behave like that because they have been driven nuts by behaviourist stalkers.
Then why didn't they attack her?
-
We regularly get trolls and obsessed individuals posting on this forum.
- If they violate their cooperative agreement when they signed up, they get a warning.
- If they continue to be non-cooperative, they are expelled from the group.
- Trust, but verify!
Moderation, sanctions and exclusion are some tools that can be used to make the internet a safe (virtual) place.
This is better than allowing social media groups to turn on individuals, which has unfortunately sometimes led to social isolation, depression and suicide in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
I don't know if this is intended as a "warning" to me or not, but call me a troll if you wish. Imply that I am obsessed and uncooperative if you wish. In fact, call me any nasty old name you wish.
I have opinions about science as, surely, do all forum members. However, I have too much experience to expect freedom of speech among certain groups of people and perhaps this is one such group. It would be a shame for you if that were so. I do not think that echo chambers serve any good function, most of all to those locked inside of them. In truth, echo chambers are a symptom of degraded minds and do a great deal of damage to those who uphold them and live within their bounds. Perhaps, however, the damaging psychological effects of echo chambers would best be pursued on a thread on the psychology forum.
-
You forgot to answer the question.
Chimps behave like that because they have been driven nuts by behaviourist stalkers.
Then why didn't they attack her?
Incidentally, turning up and making obviously false claims then failing to address criticism is trolling.
I have opinions about science
That's interesting.
Why not post about science then, rather than obvious nonsense?
-
Incidentally, turning up and making obviously false claims then failing to address criticism is trolling.
Firstly, the question asked required some thought, hence my delay in answering.
Secondly, as I said earlier, call me any old name you wish.
Thirdly, as to "obviously false claims", I do believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that science does not assess the validity of claims according to whether they are deemed "obviously" false or "obviously" true. My understanding is that the scientific method was developed in order that such claims could be assessed for their validity in a considerably more robust fashion. (And the scientific method notwithstanding, I do appreciate that science does not agree with my claims, as is also made clear from the reaction to them by forum members.)
Finally, to the interesting and very pertinent question posed earlier: Then why didn't they attack her?
My understanding of the situation is that the chimps did attack Goodall at first. This in order to discourage her from stalking them. Obviously they did not kill her but I believe they did injure her occasionally. She was certainly very wary of them for a long time until, according to Goodall, they became "habituated" to her presence.
My interpretation of the psychology of what was going on certainly does not match Goodall’s. Animals and humans can, in fact, communicate perfectly well – when both parties are behaving naturally, that is. In the case of Goodall and the chimps, my understanding of the situation is that the chimps were behaving perfectly naturally (at first) by signaling loudly and clearly to Goodall that they did not want her hanging around. However, Goodall was not behaving naturally. She refused to cooperate with the chimps, refused to “take the hint”, as it were, and so persisted and persisted in ignoring the chimps’ requests.
The chimps would never have met this unnatural behavior before. In the face of Goodall’s relentlessness, her totally, to them, alien behavior, they were finally at a loss as to how to deal with her. And so in the end they just gave up trying to communicate their needs to her i.e. asking her to “push off”. I suggest that this “giving up” is what Goodall mistakenly refers to as “habituation”.
There are parallels in human to human interactions when one side is behaving naturally and the other not. For example, take Stockholm Syndrome where prisoners fall in love with their jailors. Another well known phenomenon is when a client/patient falls in love with their therapist. These are all well documented phenomena. I suggest that something along these lines was happening between the chimps and Goodall (and subsequently between all animals and their stalkers i.e. the animal behaviorists).
-
correct me if I am wrong, that science does not assess the validity of claims according to whether they are deemed "obviously" false or "obviously" true
An assessment of trolling does.
Stockholm syndrome happens (sometimes) when "there is no escape".
But in this case any of the chimps could have ripped her apart any time they chose.
So I'm still waiting for an answer.
If they were so bothered by her so much that it might drive them nuts, why not just dispose of her?
-
Because people will instantly think that what they see is what is real, reliance on there own senses. Like people who reply to threads in the assumption that they are current rather than an aged regurgitation because of the general order of things. Poor misguided pompous fools.
A magic trick is the same, people are amazed that their own belief in their own senses is wrong. "my god i'm a moron!"
Bah humbug
-
I don't know dragon. I think BC made some valid counterpoints, but I also think that you might have some justice in your own interpretation, which I guess might come from your own experiences. But if we take intrusions in our lives as danger signs, which I suspect most animals to do, then after a while finding no danger to exist, we might also become indifferent to it. Another thing I think one need to guard against is reading in human feelings and thoughts in a animal, be it a pet or not. Although I do think they have feelings same as us and can express both love and trust.
-
Stockholm syndrome happens (sometimes) when "there is no escape".
I am sure that you are right. Stockholm Syndrome presumably does not happen all the time, probably only under the most extreme circumstances. It may even depend on the psychology of the particular people involved. Perhaps some people are more prone to Stockholm Syndrome than others, in the same way that some people are more susceptible than others to e.g. being hypnotized.
However, since the chimps had no escape from Goodall's relentlessness, it may be that a version of Stockholm Syndrome is a consideration here.
So I'm still waiting for an answer.
I believe that I have provided an answer to your question. It may be that you did not like the answer i.e. I did not answer from a scientific perspective, or even understand it, but I gave you an answer nonetheless. In the case of understanding the answer - or not - then, admittedly, it is the case that the concepts involved are somewhat advanced. Please also understand that, since I am pursuing, above all else, the truth regarding animal and human behaviour, then I will not court popularity by giving any old answer that suits. That said, I will try my best to answer your question again.
If they were so bothered by her so much that it might drive them nuts, why not just dispose of her?
All healthy animals are naturally cooperative. If Goodall was stalking lions, say, then since it is in the nature of lions to chase, catch and eat prey species, then Goodall, being potential prey, really would have been in danger of being ripped apart. However, as you know, chimps behave differently to lions. This is one reason why the chimps did not just “rip her apart”.
Another reason is, as I suggested earlier, that because of her bizarre, unnatural behaviour - from a chimp perspective - then they were eventually at a loss as to how to deal with her. She was like an alien species to them. How, then, do chimps communicate with an alien species when all normal channels of communication have failed? Being cooperative, they simply gave in and, in desperation/resignation, resorted to attempting to ignore her presence.
(When I refer to Goodall's unnatural or bizarre behaviour, what she did when the chimps attempted to communicate with her was to sit perfectly still and avoid any eye contact i.e. she looked downward towards the ground. How would you attempt to communicate with someone who refused to move away, stared at the ground and wouldn't look you in the eye and, in fact, totally ignored you? How would you deal with someone behaving in such a bizarre way? Anticipating that you might answer with something like “punch their lights out”, I might add here that people who behave in bizarre ways are often frightening, as people who watch horror movies will know. I myself remember how frightened I was of the Black Riders in Lord of the Rings when I first saw them because they behaved bizarrely i.e. unlike what one expected given their human shape, they followed scents like animals by sniffing the ground.)
In addition, it would take some time before the mental health of the chimps seriously deteriorated. It did not happen overnight. My understanding is that it was about a decade into Goodall’s study before the chimps began to really display seriously odd behaviors and exhibit unusual diseases as a result of the prolonged and extreme mental stress induced by being stalked. By that time some sort of unhealthy relationship between the chimps and Goodall had been established – perhaps something like Stockholm Syndrome. Indeed, as you point out, she was not “ripped apart”. No. Instead, the chimps resorted to ripping each other apart. And that due to the extreme mental stress, possibly resulting in psychosis, that stalking had induced in them.
-
A magic trick is the same, people are amazed that their own belief in their own senses is wrong. "my god i'm a moron!"
Bah humbug
Thank you.
I refer you to the philosopher Renee Descartes: "I think, therefore I am".
-
I don't know dragon. I think BC made some valid counterpoints, but I also think that you might have some justice in your own interpretation, which I guess might come from your own experiences.
Yes, you are correct. I do rely on my own experiences in order to reach an understanding of the world. (That does not mean I ignore science. It means that I trust myself above all else before trusting any outside authority such as, for example, science.)
But if we take intrusions in our lives as danger signs, which I suspect most animals to do, then after a while finding no danger to exist, we might also become indifferent to it.
I think you perhaps underestimate what animals can sense. A person may not behave overtly in a hostile manner, but healthy animals can still sense hostile intensions, as it were, in that person. As an example, I go to my own experiences hitch-hiking around Europe in the 70s and 80s. There were times when someone would stop to offer us (myself and my travelling companion) a lift and somehow or other, for no obvious reason i.e. the driver of the car was behaving in an apparently friendly manner, we would refuse the lift because there was something about the person that we did not like. At other times we accepted a lift from a driver because, although they were not behaving any differently from any of the others, we did not get that gut-reaction/intuition that that driver was going to trouble or even dangerous. I would say that our senses were telling us who we could trust and who we couldn't. Animals are surely no different.
Another thing I think one need to guard against is reading in human feelings and thoughts in a animal, be it a pet or not. Although I do think they have feelings same as us and can express both love and trust.
I appreciate what you are saying, but considering that both animals and humans co-exist on the same planet and all have minds then, why should communication not be possible? In fact, animals and healthy humans can perfectly well communicate with each other. Therefore I do not think the issue you raise is a serious impediment to understanding the chimps' behaviour toward Goodall.
-
However, since the chimps had no escape from Goodall's relentlessness,
How far up the trees can she climb?
How fast can she swing through the trees.
How much obvious nonsense are you going to post?
How would you deal with someone behaving in such a bizarre way?
In the circumstances, I'd simply make use of my better adaptation to the circumstances and move away. I refer you to the philosopher Renee Descartes: "I think, therefore I am".
About 50 seconds in.
-
In the circumstances, I'd simply make use of my better adaptation to the circumstances and move away.
Yes, which is what the chimps did. Only Goodall followed them. Then they moved away again and Goodall followed them again. Of course, the chimps had their home territory. Had they moved out of that (I can't remember if they did or not at first) then they would be faced with moving into another chimp groups' territory. Then there would be additional consequences for the chimps to deal with, of course.
As to you moving away, supposing the paparazzi were parked outside your home. You speak to them and they ignore your request to leave. You resort to pleading with them and they ignore your request to leave. They repeatedly, at every approach from you, refuse to move from the front of your house, their cameras trained on your windows, front door etc all the time. How easy is it to move house? Do you have the money to move house at the drop of a hat? Moving house may have consequences for your job too, of course. Can you afford to put up at a hotel until the paparazzi leave your house? In fact, when you move to a hotel, the paparazzi will simply follow you, just as Goodall followed the chimps - not as fast as the chimps could move, as you point out - but she followed their trail nonetheless and found them again just as the paparazzi would find you wherever you moved. It is not easy to evade stalkers. They are very determined. That is why people being stalked resort to the law.
-
Of course, the chimps had their home territory. Had they moved out of that (I can't remember if they did or not at first) then they would be faced with moving into another chimp groups' territory. Then there would be additional consequences for the chimps to deal with, of course.
You just shot your own argument.
You said that chimps didn't attack other chimps unless Goodall turned up.
So why would they chimps- being moved into another troop's territory- think that was an issue?
As to you moving away, supposing the paparazzi were parked outside your home. You speak to them and they ignore your request to leave. You resort to pleading with them and they ignore your request to leave. They repeatedly, at every approach from you, refuse to move from the front of your house, their cameras trained on your windows, front door etc all the time. How easy is it to move house?
Well, according to your idea I would go and attack someone else entirely.
In reality I would probably try to get the police to move them on.
If that didn't work I might resort to pouring petrol on them from an upstairs window and waving a lit match.
If they still didn't get the message, I'd drop the match.
And, given enough provocation, that's the sort of thing most people would do; they would, eventually, use force.
And I keep asking you why you think the chimps wouldn't.
Why didn't the chimps beat her up or kill her?
My answer is that they really didn't care about her very much.
There are lots of animals in the forest. Do you think that a butterfly will drive a chimp to insanity where it rushes off and kills another chimp?
Or do you think that chimps pretty much ignore most of their neighbours?
Because if they aren't able to tolerate the presence of some other creature- be it a zoologist or a mouse- they are going to be pretty busy.
-
So why would they chimps- being moved into another troop's territory- think that was an issue?
Plenty of animals are territorial. Each chimp group has its own territory. If one group were to move into the territory of another, then that upsets the status quo. However, as far as I am aware, healthy chimps do not commit wholesale murder if one group strays into the territory of another – strays accidentally, that is. There may be fisticuffs, but not genocide. However, after a decade or so of being stalked, I believe that the various chimp groups took part in an internecine war, committing murder and all sorts of unnatural acts, as well as manifesting all sorts of diseases at a very much higher rate than normal. In the end, the various groups merged into one “supergroup” , this engineered and lead by an extremely aggressive male, far more aggressive than any healthy chimp would naturally be. The chimps were driven to murder, became genocidal, in fact, because their mental health was so damaged by being stalked.
And, given enough provocation, that's the sort of thing most people would do; they would, eventually, use force.
Yes, my point exactly. Given enough provocation i.e. put under enough stress, you could react violently. In fact, it is well known that people under extreme duress will turn on each other. It is also well known that people under extreme duress will turn on themselves. For example, I knew a woman who was schizophrenic, and one time things got so bad for her that she trashed her house. She broke up or ripped furniture, spray painted the walls with obscenities etc, etc.
Under the extreme duress of being stalked, the chimps eventually turned on each other and “ripped each other apart”. In fact, they became genocidal.
Or do you think that chimps pretty much ignore most of their neighbours?
Not necessarily. When Goodall first arrived at Gombe and set up her camp, there was a troupe of baboons living in the same area as the chimps. The two groups got on well. However, friendly relations between the chimps and the baboons was one of the first casualties as a result of Goodall’s presence. In other words, her presence had a detrimental affect on the groups’ behavior. Whereas at the beginning the two groups would share food left for them by Goodall, in the end they became extremely competitive and aggressive and did not share.
Because if they aren't able to tolerate the presence of some other creature- be it a zoologist or a mouse- they are going to be pretty busy.
The crucial issue is about behavior i.e natural behavior or unnatural behavior. Goodall was NOT behaving naturally. In fact, since she was stalking the animals, she was in reality threatening them.
Finally, have you read any of Goodall’s books her life at Gombe? They are very interesting, even if, as I think, she misinterprets chimp behavior (as well as her own).
-
Having thought a bit more about your response, I have a couple of points to add.
Because people will instantly think that what they see is what is real,
Not necessarily. It depends on that person’s degree of detachment. An immediate relative of mine had schizophrenia. She was psychotic i.e. she experienced many hallucinations from a table in the middle of the floor where there wasn’t one (wasn’t a table, that is) to a disembodied head. The gory head was the easiest to deal with. It was so ridiculous that she just thought “Oh, for heaven’s sakes!” and rolled her eyes at it. The table hallucination was the hardest to deal with because it was so plausible. However, she did deal with that hallucination too and it finally disappeared. The point I am making is that she knew that these were only hallucinations and were not real. Indeed, such was her degree of detachment regarding her illness that it was even remarked upon by her clinical psychologist.
A magic trick is the same, people are amazed that their own belief in their own senses is wrong. "my god i'm a moron!"
Even scientists cannot interact with the world except through their senses e.g. sight, sound, taste etc. So, are you suggesting that all of science is inadmissible because scientists must resort to using their senses when observing or when carrying out and interpreting the results of experiments?
-
Plenty of animals are territorial.
Yes; and they fight "interlopers". That's obviously well documented.
But you are trying to claim that chimps didn't fight each other until they met Goodall.
Asd I said- you have shot down your own argument here..
However, after a decade or so of being stalked, I believe that the various chimp groups took part in an internecine war,
You may well believe that; there's no evidence for it.
And this is a science web page.
Under the extreme duress of being stalked, the chimps eventually turned on each other and “ripped each other apart”. In fact, they became genocidal.
You still keep failing to address the obvious point
If they are being troubled by Goodall, why don't they attack Goodall?
I'd a fly bothers me I swat the fly, not my neighbour.Goodall was NOT behaving naturally.
Yes she was,
Trying to find stuff out is natural behaviour for a human.
Please stop posting stuff that's just obviously wrong.
For example, I knew a woman who was schizophrenic,
It is absurd to assume that the tribe of chimps suddenly because schizophrenic.
It's also rather unhelpful to bring people with mental health problems into this.
Not necessarily. When Goodall first arrived at Gombe and set up her camp, there was a troupe of baboons living in the same area as the chimps. The two groups got on well.
You say no- they don't get on with the neighbours- and then you say that prior to her arrival they got on OK with the neighbours.
n the end, the various groups merged into one “supergroup” , this engineered and lead by an extremely aggressive male, far more aggressive than any healthy chimp would naturally be. The chimps were driven to murder, became genocidal, in fact, because their mental health was so damaged by being stalked.
Any one of the chimps could have solved the problem. A fight between a chimp and a human wouldn't last long, and there's only one plausible outcome.
-
Having thought a bit more about your response, I have a couple of points to add.
Because people will instantly think that what they see is what is real,
Not necessarily. It depends on that person’s degree of detachment. An immediate relative of mine had schizophrenia. She was psychotic i.e. she experienced many hallucinations from a table in the middle of the floor where there wasn’t one (wasn’t a table, that is) to a disembodied head. The gory head was the easiest to deal with. It was so ridiculous that she just thought “Oh, for heaven’s sakes!” and rolled her eyes at it. The table hallucination was the hardest to deal with because it was so plausible. However, she did deal with that hallucination too and it finally disappeared. The point I am making is that she knew that these were only hallucinations and were not real. Indeed, such was her degree of detachment regarding her illness that it was even remarked upon by her clinical psychologist.
Perhaps the halucinations where not halucinations , and she was being tormented by a malignant demon.
A magic trick is the same, people are amazed that their own belief in their own senses is wrong. "my god i'm a moron!"
Even scientists cannot interact with the world except through their senses e.g. sight, sound, taste etc. So, are you suggesting that all of science is inadmissible because scientists must resort to using their senses when observing or when carrying out and interpreting the results of experiments?
Scientists are not surprised that their senses lie to them, they run tests mathematically, thats called proof, one reason why theories like relativity are difficult to prove, there are other explinations for effects seen, ie if a photon has a mass its path could be bent by gravity. Explinations of the physical form from scientists who touted the 4 essences in a body is a good exaple of beli3f in senses
http://www.greekmedicine.net/b_p/Four_Humors.html
-
You still keep failing to address the obvious pointIf they are being troubled by Goodall, why don't they attack Goodall?
I refer you to replies numbered 16 and 20 for my answers to your question.
However, I am puzzled as to your insistence that I have "failed" to answer your question. Would you please clarify the situation for me i.e. be more specific?
-
Scientists are not surprised that their senses lie to them, they run tests mathematically, thats called proof, one reason why theories like relativity are difficult to prove, there are other explinations for effects seen, ie if a photon has a mass its path could be bent by gravity. Explinations of the physical form from scientists who touted the 4 essences in a body is a good exaple of beli3f in senses
Yes, but to access these mathematical proofs, scientists MUST use their senses e.g. use their sense of sight to read the test results.
The ONLY way in which people, including scientists, can access the real world is through their senses. The conclusion, then, is that scientists are just as vulnerable as other people to false sensory input. The issue, therefore, is not whether scientists are more aware of this than other people. No, that is merely a diversion.. The real issue is, in fact, that scientists are just like other people in that scientists are also vulnerable to false sensory input i.e. hallucinations. The logical conclusion is that this vulnerability raises questions about the validity of the entire body of science.
-
Obviously they did not kill her
Why not?
That's what you keep failing to answer.
Why did they not simply solve the problem?
However, Goodall was not behaving naturally.
Yes she was.
they were finally at a loss as to how to deal with her.
They knew perfectly well how to deal with her if they chose to.
They did not do so.
You keep failing to explain why.
-
However, Goodall was not behaving naturally.
Yes she was.
Littlebrowndragon: Oh, no she wasn't!
Bored Chemist: Oh, yes she was!
This is turning into a bit of a Christmas panto...……………...
-
Littlebrowndragon: Oh, no she wasn't!
Quote from: littlebrowndragon on 08/11/2019 20:15:48
Goodall was NOT behaving naturally.
Yes she was,
Trying to find stuff out is natural behaviour for a human.
Please stop posting stuff that's just obviously wrong.
Also
Obviously they did not kill her
Why not?
That's what you keep failing to answer.
Why did they not simply solve the problem?
They knew perfectly well how to deal with her if they chose to.
They did not do so.
You keep failing to explain why.