A thought experiment by philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski echoes something Michael Egnor noted recently: Not only are human beings unique but we are unique despite being animals in nature. Here’s the thought experiment:
“What does it mean to be human?” is one of the fundamental questions we all ask. Every once in a while something happens to remind us that those influenced by Darwinism usually only answer the question with “not much”. As a case in point, just today it’s being reported that the father of a son Read More…
It’s amazing what passes for insight among evolutionary psychologists. How would it help anyone decide how to help a depressed person? Read the whole thing for sure. It gets into beehives and such.
One factor that helps diminish awareness of the fact of human exceptionality is the promotion of “buzz” concepts around animal intelligence that are not supported by the histories of disciplines and fall apart under scrutiny. But any time one fails (apes can be taught to talk!), another rises, seamlessly, in its place (elephants can be taught to communicate via high tech!). No one ever calls any of these people to account.
For decades, researchers were transfixed with the idea of humanizing great apes by raising them among humans and teaching them language. Emerging from the ruins and recriminations of the collapse, philosophy prof Don Ross has a new idea: Let’s start with elephants instead…
We’re not “one” with chimpanzees. The wall has not “been breached.” So far as anyone can tell, it is not even breachable. Nobody thinks chimpanzees are the same as humans except a few researchers who mayhave spent too long in the bush.
You didn’t think plants were conscious, did you? Did you really think salad is murder? Yet telling us that plants are not conscious is the gist of a recently published major paper in Trends in Plant Science. (open access) Part of the background to the “plants think like people” movement in science, which they oppose, Read More…
You can go away screaming I suck! at an uncaring universe if you like or else you can look at evidence-based alternative views.
In a respectable venue. That’s so rare now. Noticing actual differences is radical in an age when politically correct nonsense is a form of virtue.
Increasingly, the “scientific” view of many questions involves looking reality in the face and spitting at it. Why is that?