How to Study Animal Minds PDF
Preview How to Study Animal Minds
The Philosophy of Biology How to Study Animal Minds Kristin Andrews ISSN 2515-1126 (online) ISSN 2515-1118 (print) ElementsinthePhilosophyofBiology editedby GrantRamsey KULeuven MichaelRuse FloridaStateUniversity HOW TO STUDY ANIMAL MINDS Kristin Andrews York University UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA 477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia 314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi–110025,India 79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906 CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge. ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence. www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108727464 DOI:10.1017/9781108616522 ©KristinAndrews2020 Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress. Firstpublished2020 AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. ISBN978-1-108-72746-4Paperback ISSN2515-1126(online) ISSN2515-1118(print) CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate. How to Study Animal Minds ElementsinthePhilosophyofBiology DOI:10.1017/9781108616522 Firstpublishedonline:June2020 KristinAndrews YorkUniversity Abstract:ThisElementexaminesthemethodsofcomparativepsychology, whichremainsespeciallyconcernedabouthowtostudyanimalminds andbehaviorwithoutfallingpreytofuzzythinking.Trainingin comparativepsychologyplacesspecialemphasisonavoidingbiasand onavoidingdevelopingwarmrelationshipswithanimalsubjects.The principlesofcomparativepsychology,including anti-anthropomorphism,Morgan’sCanon,rulestoavoidforming relationshipswithanimals,andtheinstructionnottopresumeanything aboutanimalconsciousness,havebeenintroducedtominimizebiasin thescience.Ratherthanseeinganimalsassentientbeingswholivein communityandhavetheirowninterests,theseprinciplesinstruct scientiststoremaindistantanddetached,introducingdifferentbiases thatstudentsarenotinstructedtowatchoutfor.InthisElementIargue thatratherthanattemptingtoavoidbias,comparativepsychologists shouldacknowledgearangeofbiasesandseekwidespread collaborativeprojectstointegratedifferentapproachestostudying animalminds. Keywords:animalminds,comparativecognition,consciousness, comparativepsychology,bias,apes ©KristinAndrews2020 ISBNs:9781108727464(PB),9781108616522(OC) ISSNs:2515-1126(online),2515-1118(print) Contents Introduction 1 1 MethodsofComparativePsychology 2 2 ConsciousAnimalsinComparativePsychology 17 3 ObjectivityandBiasinComparativePsychology 30 4 BiasesinApeCognitionStudies 42 Conclusion 64 Bibliography 65 HowtoStudyAnimalMinds 1 Introduction The birth of a new science is long, drawn out, and often fairly messy. Comparative psychology has itsroots inDarwin’s Descentof Man,wasferti- lized in academic psychology departments, and has branched across the uni- versitiesintodepartmentsofbiology,anthropology,primatology,zoology,and philosophy. Both the insights and the failings of comparative psychology are making their way into contemporary discussions of artificial intelligence and machinelearning(Chollett2019;Lapuschkinetal.2019;Watson2019).Itisthe righttime toturn aphilosophical lens ontothemethodologies ofcomparative psychology.ThatistheaimofthisElement. Comparative psychology istheumbrella coveringthedifferentwaysscien- tistsstudyanimalmindandbehavior.Comparativepsychologistsstudyanimal behavior and mentality, including the mechanisms and inner states that allow crowstoformhooks,vervetmonkeystogivewarnings,crabstomaketrade-off decisions,andhumanstouse language.While focusis onthesimilarities and differences between different species, capacities are often studied in terms of their evolutionary history, development, and current ecological or cultural context. What this entails is that comparative psychologists have a range of different kinds of training, different areas of expertise, and different research questions. One comparative cognition researcher compares children and dogs oncausalreasoningabilities(DaphnaBuchsbaum),anotherlooksatmemoryin corvids(NicolaClayton).Ananimalbehavioristexaminesraccoonterritoriesin a city (Suzanne MacDonald). One anthropologist looks at war in wild chim- panzees(JohnMitani),anotherlooksathowinnovationsareadoptedincapu- chin monkeys (Susan Perry). One ethologist looks at play in wolves (Marc Bekoff),andanotherlooksatdeceptioninbirds(CarolynRistau).Onebiologist looks at male alliances in dolphins (Richard Connor), and another examines economicgameperformanceinapesandmonkeys(SarahBrosnan).Ananimal welfare scientist studies the effect of enrichment on mink (Georgia Mason). Alearningtheoristlooksatgamblinginpigeons(ThomasZentall).Azoologist studies social learning in bees (Lars Chittka). It is not easy to guess in which departmentyou’llfindacomparativepsychologist. This Element aims to examine the methods of comparative psychology, which remains especially concerned about how to study animal minds and behaviorwithoutfallingpreytofuzzythinking.Animalscanbecute,sohumans are often intrinsically drawn to them; and this love of animals is sometimes takentobeatoddswithbeingacarefulscientist.Themethodsofcomparative psychologyreflectthisworrywiththeirspecialemphasesonavoidingbiasand onavoidingdevelopingwarmrelationshipswithanimalsubjects.Thefirsttwo 2 ElementsinthePhilosophyofBiology sections analyze three textbooks to examine what youngscientists are taught. Section 1 investigates three methodological principles students are taught to follow:Anti-anthropomorphism,Morgan’sCanon,andAnti-anthropocentrism. I argue that the first two principles should be discarded, and that developing relationships with animals should no longer be discouraged, as relationships promoteunderstanding. Buildingon thiscritique, inSection 2Ichallengethe common prohibition against including animal consciousness in comparative psychologybyarguingthatitdoesnotharmthescience,butpromotesit.Setting aside the special prohibitions for comparative psychology, in Section 3 Iexaminehowthequestforobjectivityincomparativepsychologyintroduces itsownbiasandarguethatthedifferentdisciplinesofcomparativepsychology willintroducedifferentbiases;thebestscientistscandoisidentifythesources of bias. The quest to eliminate all bias is a misguided one. Section 4 applies theseissuestorecentdebatesinapecognitionresearchbetweenscientistswho workinthefieldandthosewhoworkinthelab,andsuggestsbestpracticesfor integratingknowledgefrombothsources. Ihavehadtheopportunitytoworkwithanumberofcomparative psychol- ogists in a variety of contexts, including a stint at Lou Herman’s dolphin communication lab in the 1990s, collaborative studies with Peter Verbeek on thechild’stheoryofmindattheUniversityofMinnesota’sInstituteforChild Development, conducting research on orangutan pantomime communication with Anne Russon at her field sites in Borneo, research on rat social learning withNoamMilleratWilfridLaurierUniversity,andco-teachingafieldcourse in dolphin communication with Kathleen Dudzinski. As a philosopher of science who has been in the field and in the lab, I have a perspective from whichtocomparethecomparativepsychologists.ThisElementismyattemptto synthesize almost thirty years of experience and thinking about how to study animalminds. 1MethodsofComparativePsychology 1.1LookingatTextbooks There may be no better way to understand a science than to read the field’s textbooks (Giere 1988), since textbooks are where a mature science typically states its general principles, theories, and methods (Kuhn 1962). I asked the comparativepsychologistsIknowwhattheyteachwhenintroducingstudentsto thefield,andmostofthemtoldmetheyrelyprimarilyonjournalarticles.The booksthatwerementionedincludedafewanthologies,monographs,andthree textbooks: Sara Shettleworth’s Evolution, Cognition, and Behavior (2010b, 2012), Clive Wynne’s Animal Cognition: Evolution, Behavior and Cognition HowtoStudyAnimalMinds 3 (2004, and Wynne and Udell 2013), and John Pearce’s Animal Learning and Cognition: An Introduction (2008). While the lack of reliance on textbooks suggeststhat there maybenooverarching theoryofcomparative psychology, areviewofthesebooksshowsthatthereisaunifiedmethodology.Themethods sharetheintendedfunctionofdefendingagainstbiasandfuzzythinkinginthe studyofanimalmindsandbehavior. The textbooks teach students three methodological principles – Anti-anthropomorphism,Morgan’sCanon,andAnti-anthropocentrism. Anti-anthropomorphism–Rejecting“theattributionofhumanqualitiesto other animals, usually with the implication it is done without sound justifica- tion.”(Shettleworth2010a,477) Morgan’s Canon – “[I]n no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in termsofhigherpsychologicalprocesses,ifitcanbefairlyinterpretedintermsof processeswhichstandlowerinthescaleofpsychologicalevolutionanddevel- opment.”(Morgan1903,292) Anti-anthropocentrism – Rejecting “[holding] the human mind [to be] the gold standard against which other minds must be judged” (Povinelli 2004, 29), or “the incorrect and misleading notion of a phylogenetic scale or scala naturae.” (Shettleworth 2010b, 18) The first two of these principles have been subject to much scrutiny and criticism fromphilosophers ofscience,which shouldworrycomparative psy- chologists. I will argue that the first two principles should be discarded and replaced with standard scientific methods. There isn’t anything special about comparative psychology that requires these principles. However, Anti-anthropocentrismremainsausefulprinciple,asitinstructsustoremember that animals are not little humans dressed in furry, scaled, or feathered suits. Animals all have their own species-specific perspectives, goals, interests, and practices.Liketheearlyanthropologistsandethnologistswhohadtolearnnew culturedways ofseeing people,comparative psychologistshavetolearn con- traspecificwaysofseeinganimals. 1.2Anti-anthropomorphism Studentsofcomparativepsychologyaretaughtthatanthropomorphismisabias that we have to overcome and has no place in science. We find prohibitions againstanthropomorphisminallthreetextbooks. In his critique, Clive Wynne writes, “[A]nthropomorphism is not a well- developed scientific system. On the contrary, its hypotheses are generally nothing more than informal folk psychology, and may be of no more use to the scientific psychologist than folk physics to a trained physicist” (Wynne 4 ElementsinthePhilosophyofBiology 2004, 606). He claims that progress in animal mind science will benefit from having“explanatoryframeworksthatareconcreteandunambiguous”andthat anthropomorphismcannotofferanythingclosetothat. JohnPearceinstructsstudentsontheperilsofanthropomorphism: The temptation to attribute human feelings and experiences to animals remainstothisday.Itani(2004,p.228)providesthefollowingquotefrom a psychologist called Roger Fouts, who works with chimpanzees and who communicateswiththemusingsignlanguage...Themostfamousofthese chimpanzeesisWashoe.Fouts(1997)states:“WhenIlookedintoWashoe’s eyesshecaughtmygazeandregardedmethoughtfully,justlikemyownson did.Therewasapersoninsidethatape‘costume.’Andinthosemomentsof steadyeyecontactIknewthatWashoewasachild.”Tolaborthepointthat hasjustbeenmade,itispossiblethatWashoehassimilarmentalexperiences to a child, but it is also possible that Washoe has a very different type of mentalexperience,ornomentalexperienceatall.Gazingintohereyeswill notresolvethisissue.(Pearce2008,24) Sara Shettleworth writes, “Anthropomorphic interpretation of anecdotes like Romanes’s story of the cat, that is, folk psychology (our everyday intuitive understanding of human psychology), suggests that animals should learn by copying others. But no matter how plausible the proposed explanation of asingleobservationorsetofobservations,therearenearlyalwaysotherequally plausibleexplanations”(Shettleworth2012,4). WeseeheretwowaysofunderstandingtheAnti-anthropomorphismprinciple. Themorespecificinterpretation,whichtwooftheauthorsexplicitlyendorse,is aninstructiontoavoidfolkpsychology.Iwillshowthatfolkpsychologyplaysan essential role in comparative psychology and is the starting point, but not the end point, of research. The less specific interpretation of the principle is, as Shettleworthputsit,toavoidunjustifiedattributionsofpsychologicalproperties. While standard scientific methodagreesthatscientists should avoid unjustified claims,Ithinktheprincipledoesmoreharmthangood,anditshouldbediscarded infavorofmoregeneralprinciplesofscientificinvestigation. 1.2.1Anti-anthropomorphismasAvoidFolkPsychology Twoofthetextbookauthorsidentifiedanthropomorphismwithfolkpsychology. Thisconflationistypicalintheliterature.Inareportauthoredbymanyleading animal cognition researchers (and two philosophers1), the authors worry that “Folk psychology is the linguistic equivalent of giving guns to children and telling them to play carefully: misuse is inevitable” (Jensen et al. 2011, 274). 1 Iamoneoftheauthorsofthisreport,butIneverendorsedthisclaim!
The list of books you might like
