Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Koko was/is a hoax. Really? That's the first I hear about that. It'd be interested in a link. Here is a starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koko_%28gorilla%29 Particularly note: - Koko's keeper will not allow access to independent scientists. - People who speak ASL as a first language say Koko's "signing" is gibberish. - Only Koko's keeper seems to understand Koko's signing and therefore must "interpret" for onlookers. - Koko allegedly "speaks" in sign, but cannot understand it. - Almost nothing about Koko exists in scientific journals, only in popular media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Here is a starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koko_%28gorilla%29 Particularly note: - Koko's keeper will not allow access to independent scientists. - People who speak ASL as a first language say Koko's "signing" is gibberish. - Only Koko's keeper seems to understand Koko's signing and therefore must "interpret" for onlookers. - Koko allegedly "speaks" in sign, but cannot understand it. - Almost nothing about Koko exists in scientific journals, only in popular media. Hmm... Yeah, it is suspicious. I see the problem. I found a couple of scientific articles actually, but they were critical of the claims. Mostly because of the above stated issues. But a hoax, a deliberate attempt of deception for mischievous purposes? Bad science or over-optimistic attitude of the trainer, but was she really out to con everyone? And I don't see the word "hoax" in the Wiki link you gave me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Here is a starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koko_%28gorilla%29 Particularly note: - Koko's keeper will not allow access to independent scientists. - People who speak ASL as a first language say Koko's "signing" is gibberish. - Only Koko's keeper seems to understand Koko's signing and therefore must "interpret" for onlookers. - Koko allegedly "speaks" in sign, but cannot understand it. - Almost nothing about Koko exists in scientific journals, only in popular media. Hmm... Yeah, it is suspicious. I see the problem. I found a couple of scientific articles actually, but they were critical of the claims. Mostly because of the above stated issues. But a hoax, a deliberate attempt of deception for mischievous purposes? Bad science or over-optimistic attitude of the trainer, but was she really out to con everyone? And I don't see the word "hoax" in the Wiki link you gave me. Yes, a hoax for the purpose of garnering sympathy/support for beliefs that this class of animals is sentient/intelligent and should be treated as people. This is a classic case of a scientist getting too close to their study subject and hence losing objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Yes, a hoax for the purpose of garnering sympathy/support for beliefs that this class of animals is sentient/intelligent and should be treated as people. This is a classic case of a scientist getting too close to their study subject and hence losing objectivity. A "hoax" is usually humorous or malicious, so you're saying that she did this to ultimately discredit science or because it was fun. I think you could be right with her getting too close and losing objectivity, but if that's the case, it's not a hoax (in the meaning I know the word). But perhaps you're using the word hoax in a different way I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Yes, a hoax for the purpose of garnering sympathy/support for beliefs that this class of animals is sentient/intelligent and should be treated as people. This is a classic case of a scientist getting too close to their study subject and hence losing objectivity. A "hoax" is usually humorous or malicious, so you're saying that she did this to ultimately discredit science or because it was fun. I think you could be right with her getting too close and losing objectivity, but if that's the case, it's not a hoax (in the meaning I know the word). But perhaps you're using the word hoax in a different way I do? Yeah, looks like we have different interpretations of "hoax." To me it means a deliberate deception for a purpose. On-line dictionaries seem to support that, but I am too lazy to drag out my foot-thick Webster's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 A "hoax" is usually humorous or malicious, so you're saying that she did this to ultimately discredit science or because it was fun. I think you could be right with her getting too close and losing objectivity, but if that's the case, it's not a hoax (in the meaning I know the word). But perhaps you're using the word hoax in a different way I do? Yeah, looks like we have different interpretations of "hoax." To me it means a deliberate deception for a purpose. Even so, then it wasn't that she just lost her objectivity or got a little lost. She didn't misread the signals because of some delusion, but because she intentionally wanted to defraud. On-line dictionaries seem to support that, but I am too lazy to drag out my foot-thick Webster's. It seems like you're right. Webster's supports your view. I was using New Oxford American dictionary. It looks like they have slightly different definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Yeah, looks like we have different interpretations of "hoax." To me it means a deliberate deception for a purpose. Even so, then it wasn't that she just lost her objectivity or got a little lost. She didn't misread the signals because of some delusion, but because she intentionally wanted to defraud. If you follow the history of this, I think one thing led to another. Patterson appears to have started out on the level (maybe), but then anthropomorphized Koko and went all Jane Goodall. Patterson knew (perhaps subconsciously) that her conclusions could not stand up to legitimate scientific scrutiny, and that would not do because it would undermine her beliefs. ETA: So, she perpetuated the hoax to preserve the ill conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Okay. I can see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Okay. I can see your point. I am.... The Iconoclast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I'm actually from the camp that says sentient bipeds with opposable thumbs are best suited to evolving tool making, concept thinking, and technological superiority over the other species. I think the outcome would be different if the environmental/terrain aspects of Earth were radically different. We might all have tentacles and stuff, who knows ? The idea that we are "made in God's image" to me has always been a more conceptual one, not necessarily a physical appearance thing. Of course, many people have kicked around the possible interpretations of what "image" really means, just in case Clay was going to go there. If it's literal, then God is a black-skinned hairy dude. With a slight stoop. Cuz that's what early homo sapiens look like. Yeah, that went over well at church. I think Clay believes in the general scientific themes of biology, nature and the cosmos, so let's cut him some slack, people. He might even be a Star Trek fan; which counts loads with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I think Clay believes in the general scientific themes of biology, nature and the cosmos, so let's cut him some slack, people. He might even be a Star Trek fan; which counts loads with me. I'd cut him shitloads of slack if he'd get honest instead of dodging, deflecting, redirecting, and ignoring questions that do not fit his preconceived notions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I think Clay believes in the general scientific themes of biology, nature and the cosmos, so let's cut him some slack, people. He might even be a Star Trek fan; which counts loads with me. I'd cut him shitloads of slack if he'd get honest instead of dodging, deflecting, redirecting, and ignoring questions that do not fit his preconceived notions. Yeah, that, too. While he "studies" us, we are "studying" him. Hopefully, he will learn that you just can't come up with some fancy arguments and conceptual explorations, and deftly "wow the crowd", since many here have spent years exploring every esoteric and remote avenue that exists within the entire faith/metaphysics/god game/religion matrix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I think Clay believes in the general scientific themes of biology, nature and the cosmos, so let's cut him some slack, people. He might even be a Star Trek fan; which counts loads with me. I'd cut him shitloads of slack if he'd get honest instead of dodging, deflecting, redirecting, and ignoring questions that do not fit his preconceived notions. Yeah, that, too. While he "studies" us, we are "studying" him. Hopefully, he will learn that you just can't come up with some fancy arguments and conceptual explorations, and deftly "wow the crowd", since many here have spent years exploring every esoteric and remote avenue that exists within the entire faith/metaphysics/god game/religion matrix. And just like all before him, he presumes we are ex-xtians because of "a bad experience" or something--anything--other than we grew up and realized it was all just made-up stories like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Why is it so hard for xtians to believe/accept that? That's a rhetorical question, of course, because we already know the answer: Fear that they, too, might go there; or that their beliefs really are false; that all those nagging questions no one want to talk about are legitimate; etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 If evolution were rerun on Earth would a sentient animal with the same level of abstract thought as humans, i.e. able to understand and predict the universe, have arisen? I'm not asking could it have arisen. I'm asking would it have. Chimpanzees, very possibly if not immitation elephants and also dolphins. That should be enough for now. But if you need more..... But if from scratch, well it depends on how much of a demand there is for it. If there is no incentives in any of the enviroments, the genes for our level of abstract thought may not get passed on or may not become (looks for a word) enough to make a difference in the population to make a species end up with the abstract thought. And if carnivores aren't formed (I don't they won't be) then there would be no incentive for intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I always wondered what would happen if another species evolved on Earth in a similar fashion as humans along the same time-frame as us, with complex linguistic capabilities, if only just to disprove the idea of human exceptionalism. I think I can answer that: We'd kill them. Then, we'd justify it with human exceptionalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 If evolution were rerun on Earth would a sentient animal with the same level of abstract thought as humans, i.e. able to understand and predict the universe, have arisen? I'm not asking could it have arisen. I'm asking would it have. Impossible to say. Understand that intelligence is not a 'goal', it is just one of countless survival strategies and sentience is a byproduct of that strategy taken to the extreme. The dinosaurs were around for twice as long as the time they have been gone and they stayed quite stupid. Its also entirely possible that, if evolution were rerun, that a MORE intelligent species could have evolved sooner than humans did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 ...if evolution were rerun, that a MORE intelligent species could have evolved sooner than humans did. That's a cool idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts