We always heard, growing up, that humans are the only tool-making animal. Turns out that's wrong — parrots will bend a piece of wire so that it can be used to retrieve food from containers.
So many humans are the only animal with a grammar-based language. Turns out that's wrong, too:
CNN: Study: Songbirds can learn basic grammar
The simplest grammar, long thought to be one of the skills that separate man from beast, can be taught to a common songbird, new research suggests.
Starlings learned to differentiate between a regular birdsong "sentence" and one containing a clause or another sentence of warbling, according to a study in Thursday's journal Nature.
It took University of California at San Diego psychology researcher Tim Gentner a month and about 15,000 training attempts, with food as a reward, to get the birds to recognize the most basic of grammar in their own bird language.
Yet what they learned may shake up the field of linguistics.
While many animals can roar, sing, grunt or otherwise make noise, linguists have contended for years that the key to distinguishing language skills goes back to our elementary school teachers and basic grammar.
Sentences that contain an explanatory clause are something that humans can recognize, but not animals, researchers figured.
Two years ago, a top research team tried to get tamarin monkeys to recognize such phrasing, but they failed. The results were seen as upholding famed linguist Noam Chomsky's theory that "recursive grammar" is uniquely human and key to the facility to acquire language.
But after training, nine out of Gentner's 11 songbirds picked out the bird song with inserted warbling or rattling bird phrases about 90 percent of the time. Two continued to flunk grammar.
"We were dumbfounded that they could do as well as they did," Gentner said. "It's clear that they can do it."
…
To put the trained starlings' grammar skills in perspective, Gentner said they don't match up to either of his sons, ages 2 and 9 months.What the experiment shows is that language and animal cognition is a lot more complicated than scientists once thought and that there is no "single magic bullet" that separates man from beast, said Jeffrey Elman, a professor of cognitive science at UCSD, who was not part of the Gentner research team.
Every attempt to define a hard-fast distinction between human and animal will fail because humans are animals. We will always find an exception to any proposed rule. The sole distinction that will ever stand is that humanity alone is created in the image of God — and that fact is abstract, not empirical.
Unfortunately, such studies often lead to the misguided belief that humans are no different from animals whatsoever. Case in point (courtesy of Polimom): Spanish legislators are considering granting full legal rights to apes:
The Spain Herald: Socialists: Give apes human rights
The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.
The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species."
According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their inclusion in the community of equals."
Simply because we can't define a difference between man and woman that escapes all exceptions doesn't mean there aren't differences between men and women. We have separate restroom facilities and fitting rooms for a reason.
There's foolishness in excess philosophy, and wisdom in retaining a modicum of common sense. Will science ever identify a unique ability that humans alone possess? Nope. Are humans superior to animals? You betcha.
April 28, 2006 at 2:41 am |
Interesting. I've never known any species other than man carry out global scale pollution, putting other species at risk. That makes us pretty unpleasant, really.
I wonder if man's unique ability is to think up a god (in our own image, or an elephant with lots of arms, whatever looks good). But animals do get into stereotypical behaviour, nodding at the cage bars in a tight loop. Maybe this is where religion comes from, fortified by social interaction – it helps deal with the limitations of the real world; this cage we inhabit.
You're surrounded by people who love you and each other. That's what we need to recognize. The guy in the robes telling us to love each other acts as a social lubricant. That's a good thing. If animals end up with sufficient language, perhaps the lion will lay down with the lamb.
Do you think apes should be afforded respect? I do.
April 28, 2006 at 6:36 am |
I've seen areas screwed up by animals — seagulls, beavers — but it could be argued the destruction they waged was part of a larger natural cycle. Maybe one empirical distinction could be that only humans manufacture non-biodegradable materials. Oops — what about seashells?
I've known many a humanist who fits this description as well. As far as open-mindedness goes, if I compare the platform of my beliefs against a statistically-derived platform of mainstream society, I bet I'd look like the open-minded person, while the majority looks like lemmings. I didn't start out as a believer — in high school I mocked the Bible and creationism. It took a lot of questioning and nonconformist thinking to bring me to this point.
Me too! We should respect all of God's craftsmanship (except mosquitoes). I think our attitude toward animal use/exploitation/abuse is too cavalier. My conviction doesn't come from any pretended equality between human and animal, but from the mandate of Genesis chapter 1:
What poor rulers we so often are, we who neglect and abuse our subjects …
April 28, 2006 at 8:12 am |
It's time to stop increasing in number now, though. At least until we establish off-world colonies.
So I guess the idea of ruling is quite beguiling. It would make you feel good.
Non-conformist thinking? People turn to religion either through peer pressure, when they're unhappy, or when they mistake the hormonal hit of big happiness (with that major hormone rush that lifts you off your feet – I've had it too) for something bigger than themselves (I have a good friend who went this way). You might feel this is too personal, so I won't be offended if you prefer to remain more abstract than answering a question: When did you turn?
What's a statistically derived platform? You've been arguing that evolution is unlikely to have given rise to us.
April 28, 2006 at 8:49 am |
I don't see much difference in emotional payoff between humanistic and religious environmental concerns. Humanists elect themselves caretakers of other creatures; the religious see themselves as elected by God for that task. If anything, I'd say the humanists would feel better about themselves, altruistically assuming such a weighty responsibility, with only lost opportunities at risk. Christians, on the other hand, act out of obedience, not altruism — and face the possibility of judgment from a God angry at their negligence.
Poor wording on my part. I just meant the typical trends/beliefs of mainstream society, if they could in any way be listed. My beliefs often seem to swim against the tide. I claim the term nonconformist for myself because I am the product of a public school education and an elite liberal university, and yet I've turned my back on much of the postmodernism, humanism, Darwinism in which I was steeped. (There aren't many Hopkins graduates you can name who take the Bible literally and hold to a six-day creation. In fact, I didn't even begin to explore creationism until I was 25 …) I also keep one foot out of Christian subculture, spurning the superstitious simplicity of evangelicalism in favor of a more intellectually rigorous faith.
… to the dark side? In college. I was baptized Catholic as an infant, raised in a home that can best be described as agnostic. We didn't go to church, didn't read the Bible, said grace at meals and that was about it. How I came to know Christ is a longer story I plan to blog about at some point, in response to your earlier question on your blog. I wouldn't say it was through peer pressure (how would that work at liberal Johns Hopkins University?), or emotional high (my faith has been marked by a distinct lack of charismaticism).
I've been through two major episodes when I abandoned faith. Both times, after months, I later returned to faith– again, not through peer pressure (I'd abandoned Christian fellowship) or emotional high (each return to faith was a decision quite disappointingly flat emotionally.)
April 28, 2006 at 9:25 am |
Got your ruling thing.
The intellectually rigorous faith thing still needs work. Can we explore that a little further? You’ve begun to get the hang of entropy, which is cool. If you can have a read through the other discussions and start up on one of those that would be good. I’ve commented on all of them, and RubeRad has on some, too.
What was your major? I did engineering and computer science, which is where the thermodynamics comes in. I’ve been getting involved in genetics over the last decade or so.
April 28, 2006 at 10:41 am |
I definitely intend to get through all the discussions — I'm just preoccupied with other projects. Plus I begin teaching my first graduate classes in two weeks (Technology in the Classroom, Selection and Use of Media) and have a lot of prep to do.
In college I was a Writing Sems major — English with a creative writing focus. Actually I started as a double major with physics (had a full scholarship from the US Air Force) but dropped that (and the Air Force) when I fell fatally in love with language. So what do you want to know? That I was captain of the Physics Olympics team at my high school? That I scored 790/800 on the Calculus SAT II? That I could've won either of my high school's Math or the Science departmental awards, but didn't because I won the English award instead?
My field could've been science, but isn't. Still, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate digging through science articles and hearing perspectives like yours.
April 28, 2006 at 11:29 am |
This is reminiscent of the same humanistic naivete’ that assumes that if humans end up with sufficient education, perhaps we could all just stop killing and hurting and exploiting each other. Can’t we just get along, man?
No.
April 28, 2006 at 1:17 pm |
Lime Jelly wrote:
Perhaps it is because I live in Mass and not a southern state. But being religious up here is non-conformist. But I love how you portray the only way people can come to religion is through only emotional events. That if intelligence prevailed at all in their thought process then there is just no way they could have found this path. Only through ignorance does one land in the false clutches of God's hand. After all religion is the opium of the masses.
In the United States this chain of thought is the majority, not the view of the few intellectually priviliged. You are actually the conformist. Try to be part of the scientific community and not believe in evolution. If you don't conform to the idea quickly your career in any scientific field will be over before it starts.
I will spare you the details, but it was physics that brought me to believe in a creator. Although I have no credentials you may be seeking for education, except for an advanced physics class in high school that I failed because I came in high every day (nothing like discussing vectors when you're stoned). It had something to do with all the laws being just as they are, any difference even slightly in how gravity, motion, forces, etc. worked and life would not be possible. Not to mention naturalistic causes can only go backward in time so far (what created the big bang?, what created that?, and so on). The religious are not all just addicts that found God (their new drug).
April 28, 2006 at 4:26 pm |
F, I didn’t get from that whether you did well in physics, or whether you’re saying you could have done, but you took English instead.
R, I don’t think the lion will lie down with the lamb – I was having a go at conjouring up an image of animals with language following a trusted dude through juxtaposition. I know that there will always be bad people – both religious and unreligious – which messes up any system we try to follow.
Jim, you didn’t get through basic physics, but you use it to construct your take on religion. We inhabit the universe in which life is possible. The myriad universes where it is not possible are barren. If we can find anything with some evidence behind it to replace evolution, it’ll be explored. By the way, who created God?
April 29, 2006 at 9:36 am |
I am not an expert physisist and will never claim to be. but it is one of the few fields I do like to study on my own time. My physics teacher back then (Mr, Mitchell), a man I will always have the greatest respect for. One of the finest teachers I have ever met. On the last day of my senior year, the class was over and everyone was walking out of the room (I was one of the last, since I always sat in the back stoned). Mr Mitchell stood in front of me and prevented me from walking out. There he stood blocking my way sticking his hand out for me to shake it. He said to me as we shook hands “Jim, you are one of the first true Physisist I have ever had in my classroom. If you could have just come to class in a better frame of mind and bothered to do any homework, you would have aced this class with ease. I hope you somehow manage to utilize your talents.” I did ace every test and in class assignment he gave. I also won physics field day, which involved a bridge building contest, egg drop contest, and so on. Where I took first in most design competitions.
I realize this is the equivilent of bragging about winning a high school football game, but a do have a decent knowledge of physics, although I did manage to waste, for the most part, any talents I may have.
I am glad to see that you acknowledge that in order for life to happen with only natural causes thaere must be an infinate amount of universes. Many people don’t even get my point about that, and just keep insisting its possible with only one.
As far as the question of who created God? I can only answer with when we keep going backwards with only naturalistic causes eventually we must come to some type of creator. So then what about the creators beginnings? At that point when we cross from naturalistic to creator then we cross the boundry for the need for our logic to fit and make sense. Perhaps there is not “time” and so on. Thus eliminating the need for a creator of the creator. That is perhaps the best answer I can give and I know it won’t suffice because it doesn’t fit with mans logic. But if you look at it as God created mans logic, then it doesn’t have to. I guess that is a huge benifit of believing in God is that we can go beyond logic. I realize that gives an unfair advantage, but I do refrain from using this when debating I.D. and evolution. Since it would just discredit anything I said.
April 29, 2006 at 4:49 pm |
Cool – you’ve got back to the bit we haven’t worked out yet, and defined that as supernatural. I prefer to try and work it out, bro. I guess I insist there’s no such thing as magic.
Do you go for the dry bones thing?
May 2, 2006 at 1:24 pm |
Not sure what you mean about “dry bones”. I googled it and it comeup with a jewish comic strip?
May 2, 2006 at 1:27 pm |
Not sure what you mean about “dry bones”. I googled it and it came up with a jewish comic strip?
May 2, 2006 at 2:45 pm |
See RubeRad’s post: http://ruberad.wordpress.com/2006/04/02/bible-for-boys/
I hadn’t heard of it either except through the “Dem bones, dem bones dem dry bones… hear the word of the lord” song without knowing where it came from.. Either an overblown metaphor or a startling flight of fancy from my perspective.
August 13, 2006 at 4:00 pm |
I wish I could remember whose blog I read it on, but somebody had an interesting analysis based on the most densely-populated Earthly cities (Paris @ 45Kpeople/sq mi if I remember rightly?) that our current population could squeeze into Alberta (Saskatchewan), leaving the rest of the world for food-growing.
Just a quick calculation, if my 45K/sqmi number is correct, then 6 billion people would fit in 365 mi x 365 mi, which is a miniscule fraction of the earths’ available land.
So we’re not actually all that crowded just yet.
August 14, 2006 at 2:06 pm |
Links mentioned above:
Here’s the permalink, but the formatting seems to be off, so you might also try here