Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Proboscidea self-identify!

This is way too awesome to let pass up on some good discussion. A student of mine just a couple of weeks ago said he came across an article talking about some cases in which elephants raised in captivity who were let out into the wild came back to find their trainers much later, after having "kids", and they were specifically bringing the kids back with them. The interpretation was that these elephants were essentially bringing the kids over to meet whom they had identified as a parent, the trainer, the person who raised and took care of them. Now how cool is that? They also mourn the death of their mate, and I think don't ever take up another mate after that; also mourn the death of their children; and it's not uncommon for them to behave in such a way after events like that that suggests, very convincingly, that they are depressed, like, really depressed, as a human would be if he/she lost a loved one. Anyway, onto the article:

Original article

Mirror Test Reflects Well on Elephants

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01

Elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror and use their reflections to explore hidden parts of themselves, a measure of subjective self-awareness that until now has been shown definitively only in humans and apes, researchers reported yesterday.

The findings confirm a long-standing suspicion among scientists that elephants, with their big brains, complex societies and reputation for helping ill herdmates, have a sufficiently developed sense of identity to pass the challenging "mirror self-recognition test."

The test, which in this case required construction of a huge, "elephant-proof" mirror at the Bronx Zoo, where the experiments were conducted, provides an index of an animal's ability to conceive of itself. It is a quality of self-consciousness that some scientists believe is a prerequisite for the emergence of empathy and altruism.

Such animals, the thinking goes, are in a position to use what they know about themselves to make inferences about other beings and their needs.

"It really is a clue about the evolution of intelligence," said Diana Reiss of the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, who led the new study on the endangered species with Frans de Waal and Joshua Plotnik of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta.

"It tells us you can come to this same endpoint with very different creatures and with very different brains," said Reiss, who has seen similar but less certain signs of self-recognition among dolphins.

Gordon G. Gallup Jr., a psychology professor at the State University of New York at Albany who developed the mirror test nearly 40 years ago, praised the elephant study as a "very solid, very impressive piece of scientific work."

Some scientists took a more skeptical view, reflecting the controversy that has long engulfed the field of animal intelligence generally and the meaning of the mirror recognition test in particular.

"Far too much has been made of a very trivial task in all these mirror experiments, and it has lately reached some dizzyingly bizarre heights," said Robin Dunbar of the University of Liverpool in England. Dunbar criticized the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the journal that published the new results in its early online edition yesterday, for what he called "poor editorial standards."

Researchers over the years have provided body-size mirrors to hundreds of animals in zoos and other habitats. Almost always, the animals act as though the image they see is of another.

"Most animals seem incapable of learning that their behavior is the source of the behavior in the mirror," Gallup said. "They are incapable of deciphering that dualism."

By contrast, human babies get it by age 2, as do adult chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans.

Monkeys, which are more distantly related to humans than are apes, never catch on. Indeed, the only non-ape species to come close to passing until now has been the bottlenose dolphin; it lacks the limbs to touch itself (a key part of the mirror test's final challenge) but can use mirrors to examine hidden parts of its body.

The new study involved three female Asian elephants at the zoo, in New York City. Workers built a 64-square-foot acrylic mirror, cemented it to plywood, framed it in steel and bolted it to a stone wall of the elephant enclosure.

"Our primary concern was the safety of the elephants," said Plotnik, a graduate student at Emory University, home to the Yerkes lab. "Our second concern was making sure they don't destroy the mirror. They are very curious animals."

In a series of experiments, the elephants first explored the mirror -- reaching behind it with their trunks, kneeling before it and even trying to climb it -- gathering clues that the mirror image was just that, an image.

That was followed by an eerie sequence in which the animals made slow, rhythmic movements while tracking their reflections. Then, like teenagers, they got hooked.

All three conducted oral self-exams. Maxine, a 35-year-old female, even used the tip of her trunk to get a better look inside her mouth. She also used her trunk to slowly pull her ear in front of the mirror so she could examine it -- "self-directed" behaviors the zookeepers had never seen before.

Moreover, one elephant, Happy, 34, passed the most difficult measure of self-recognition: the mark test. The researchers painted a white X on her left cheek, visible only in the mirror. Later, after moving in and out of view of the mirror, Happy stood directly before the reflective surface and touched the tip of her trunk to the mark repeatedly -- an act that, among other insights, requires an understanding that the mark is not on the mirror but on her body.

The researchers also placed a transparent, "sham" mark that could not be seen in the mirror on Happy's right cheek, to see if the feel of that mark on the skin alone might cause her to touch that spot. It did not.

DeWaal acknowledged that the precise meaning of the test is debatable. In particular, he said, "people who work on animals that don't pass the test get upset" and tend to belittle its meaning.

But he and many others strongly suspect that the rarity of mirror self-recognition -- along with it being more common among animals reported to help other animals in need -- makes the test a good marker for a certain level of consciousness.

"I believe that all animals have some level of self-awareness, but those that pass the mirror test have more of it," de Waal said.

Marc Hauser, a Harvard biologist who has studied self-recognition in cotton-top tamarins, said that the mirror test is valuable but that other tests can also shed light on "what kinds of thoughts animals have about themselves and others."

Monkeys do well on other tests of self-awareness, for example, including some that measure their awareness of gaps in their knowledge. "They're good at knowing what they don't know," Hauser said.

Some birds are especially good at knowing what other animals know about them: Jays will move hidden food if they realize another bird has been watching them hide it.

Whatever the mirror test's real meaning, the fact that few beyond humans can pass it speaks to the need to protect Asian elephants -- which are endangered due to hunting and habitat destruction -- and to continue the search for similarly endowed critters, Reiss said.

Among the leading candidates: orca, or "killer," whales, which are fearsome hunters but are also highly social and intelligent.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

And now for something completely different...

Not that Trin's Phil Science discussion hasn't been interesting...

Tuesday night at reading group there was a discussion regarding the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. This, of course, led into a discussion regarding affirmative action. Very briefly, for those of you that don't know, the MCRI would end affirmative action in Michigan. The bill was proposed by Ward Connerly, who has already been victorious getting similar measures passed in California in Oregon. Our discussion on Tuesday night centered around what this meant for universities. When California was no longer required to admit a certain number of minorities into its state universities, the percentage of minorities admitted dropped considerably. However, the success rate of minorities that were admitted seems to be higher. (I won't pretend I've looked up all the stats on this, so I'll just stick with weak claims based on hearsay from Fritz, Joe, and Mike.)

What are everyone else's thoughts on this? I'm inclined to say that even though the system of affirmative action is inadequate, we should keep it until we can come up with something better (ie. better public educational systems). I am, however, far from decided on the issue.

More info on the MCRI:
Citizens Research Council of Michigan (MCRI info is down the page a bit)
propaganda in support of the MCRI
Links to propaganda against the MCRI
John Conyers on the MCRI
Editorial from Kazoo Gazette

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Theories as Conventions

I pulled this quote from a blog of a friend of mine. He is a graduate student in economics and interested in the philosophy of science. I have excerpted parts of my responses (numbered 1 and 2) to his question and have left them incomplete in order to initiate what I hope to be a heated debate…

"Philosophers of science *should* match their program theory with past historical instance. It would be important to show that, for instance, validation has worked in the past. That is, philosophers of science should practice their own discipline. That said, it is insufficient to criticize a philosophy of science theory merely on the grounds that it does not align with history. However, it must be shown that any philosophy of science theory in the past has worked, even though it may not explain the entire history of progression in science. A Popperian, for instance, would attempt to falsify other theories in the philosophy of science on the basis of poor empirical support or disconfirmation.”

(1) I would ask that you explain why, if the theory is strictly normative, the theory of science needs to answer to historical validation. I understand the need for validation if the theory is sold as a descriptive/normative account of science, but for a normative account, I would argue that it would be something akin to a category mistake to require empirical justification for some theory that is not making any empirical claims.

(2) For Popper, his theory of falsificationism is supposed to be initially adopted as a convention, to be justified solely according to its consequences (problem-solving magnitude, though he does not use these words). Popper conceptualizes scientific endeavors as essentially problem-solving endeavors (philosophy in general is also based on problem-solving). As such, hypotheses are proposed solutions to these problems and are only useful insofar as they are good at solving the problem that they have been generated to solve. The problem for a theory of science is, for Popper, a means of successfully demarcating scientific claims from non-scientific claims. He suggests that Falsificationism is well equipped to demarcate science and to uphold various other characteristics that must be upheld in order for some enterprise to be called scientific (various empirical strictures, a conception of progress, etc). So his theory of science is conventional, in that, it does not initially come with a full-fledged rational justification-package, but is to be provisionally accepted as a means of solving the problem at hand. If it solves a problem (the problem of demarcation), then we keep it, if it does not, we provide another solution and examine how well it solves the problem. So a methodological theory is not to be critiqued by another theory and its particular methodological processes, but by how well that theory solves the particular problem that it was proposed to solve. For example, Popper didn’t critique the Positivist’s verification criteria of meaning according to whether it is subject to falsification, but because it did not adequately solve that which it was suppose to solve; i.e, the problem of demarcation.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Shall we try this again?

The torch has been passed.
WMU's philosophy department has new grad students.
Will we be able to keep it going? Perhaps.
Only time will tell...

If you are a current philosophy grad student and want to be added as a contributor, contact me at: sarah . c . stangl [at] wmich . edu