Dave- There is something insightful and something a little philosophically playful about the questions. Yes, you are correct that these seem to be anthropocentric. Science is an system primarily engaged in through linguistic forms and agreements which, in Wittgenstein's way of thinking is a bit of an inescapable necessity (how does one play language games outside of linguistic constraints?). So yes, I think you are correct that the solutions being proffered are, in your words, "subsequently blind to the possibility of language as symbolic, semantic, structured, and generative/productive manifesting in forms qualitatively distinct from human forms." On the other hand, I could not agree more with the sentiment I seem to remember from one of the finest minds I had the opportunity to learn from, Ernst von Glasersfeld, that the majority of these programs of research seem to strongly suggest that infra-humans don't make very good humans (apologies to Ernst if I got that wrong!). I'm not saying it isn't possible to scientifically study infra-humans. In all honesty, I got that point from reading Fouts' book also. (Yes, we should be studying them in/on their own construct levels- I'm not sure how to do that scientifically though). On the other hand, perhaps another way of saying that is I find other puzzles more appealing and/or I don't mind the anthropocentric so long as I know that it is there. ;) Tim
_______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "it is not enough these days to simply QUESTION AUTHORITY. You have to speak with it, too." - Taylor Mali -----Original Message----- From: David E. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 11/5/2007 10:21 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re:[tips] Alex, Washoe, and "Next of Kin" by Fouts Not being well versed in this debate, can someone clarify for me why the discussion is always about animal acquisition of human language and human constructs? The whole discussion strikes me as terribly anthropocentric and subsequently blind to the possibility of language as symbolic, semantic, structured, and generative/productive manifesting in forms qualitatively distinct from human forms. Creating environments for animals to learn and express language on human terms may not tap that animals innate capacity. I'm also curious to know what some of the recent evidence is from the study of language among marine mammals such as dolphins and whales. Can anyone share? Thanks for any insight, Dave ------------------- David E. Hall, M.S. Instructor/ Ph.D. Candidate Systems Science: Psychology Portland State University (C) 503-799-5922 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
<<winmail.dat>>
