Secular Morality?

[Tassman]

That is correct, so I don't suspect that Jenson is bias. Here is a good link from this year summing up the research so far: http://scienceline.org/2015/01/origi...ill-fair-game/

Origins of cooperation are still fair game Scientists continue to debate whether experiments can show that our primate ancestors evolved fairness, or if cooperation is uniquely human

An interesting take out runs along the lines of what I have been saying:



How many times have I made this very point? We do not know their motivation, even when what they are doing looks like human fairness. The fact is Tass, science is completely unsettled in this area there is no "substantial evidence" that what primates are doing is anything like what we are doing. Read the link, it presents both sides fairly.

[seer]

All that we can measure is behavior, not motivations. Nonetheless, in human studies equitable outcomes are interpreted as reflecting a sense of fairness, thus this explanation must be considered for the apes as well.

Tass, people like Jensen, Hare, Call, and Michael Tomasello (who is with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) are experts in this field. And as the link stated there are inherent difficulties in assigning motivation. Even in your above quote that is referenced. The fact is there is no conclusive evidence either way, and with the fact that we never can really know the primates mind (which I have stressed during this debate) - this remains a most unsettled field.

. The real debate, it seems, is over how to conduct this kind of research. And until researchers can design experiments that they all agree about, the debate will likely go on.

[Tassman]

Tass, people like Jensen, Hare, Call, and Michael Tomasello (who is with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) are experts in this field. And as the link stated there are inherent difficulties in assigning motivation. Even in your above quote that is referenced. The fact is there is no conclusive evidence either way, and with the fact that we never can really know the primates mind (which I have stressed during this debate) - this remains a most unsettled field.

Only in your mind and for the wrong reasons; you will continue to see what you want to see. I've nothing further to add to the argument.

[seer]

Only in your mind and for the wrong reasons; you will continue to see what you want to see. I've nothing further to add to the argument.

Really Tass, talk about seeing what you want to see. OK.

[Truthseeker]

Can inference be the same as scientific fact?

[Tassman]

Can inference be the same as scientific fact?

The usual example is the fact that the sun has always been observed to rise in the East. Thus, via inference, one can reasonably conclude that the sun always rises in the East. In this way scientific induction can result in conclusions sufficiently validated to enable one to reasonably act as if they are proven. Of course the likes of seer will claim that they are merely assumptions and not to be taken seriously.

[Doug Shaver]

Of course the likes of seer will claim that they are merely assumptions and not to be taken seriously.

Not just the likes of seer claim that. All inductive reasoning is based on assumptions about the constancy of natural law. If you lose those assumptions, you're not doing science any more.

[seer]

Of course the likes of seer will claim that they are merely assumptions and not to be taken seriously.

I never said that.

[Truthseeker]

The usual example is the fact that the sun has always been observed to rise in the East. Thus, via inference, one can reasonably conclude that the sun always rises in the East. In this way scientific induction can result in conclusions sufficiently validated to enable one to reasonably act as if they are proven. Of course the likes of seer will claim that they are merely assumptions and not to be taken seriously.

That post might confuse inference with induction? You have a series of observations, which a hypothesis can be drawn from them--"the sun always rises in the east"--that is induction, moving from a series of specific observations to a general statement.

Inference is reasoning from a set of premises, typically, to reach a conclusion. The premises could be partially or wholly formed by induction.

[Tassman]

Not just the likes of seer claim that. All inductive reasoning is based on assumptions about the constancy of natural law. If you lose those assumptions, you're not doing science any more.

I'm well aware of that thanks Doug. I was referring to seer's refusal to acknowledge the validity of inferences made by leading primatologists regarding the sense of fairness among non-human primates and dismissing them as mere assumptions as per his # 796 “How do you know what the Monkey is thinking? What I have been arguing against is the unfounded assumption in the De Waal link”.

I never said that.

You have said that many times in this discussion e.g. # 796: "What I have been arguing against is the unfounded assumption in the De Waal link”

But it’s good that you now agree with the validity of the inferences drawn by primatologists Darby Proctor, Rebecca A. Williamson, Frans B. M. de Waal, Sarah F. Brosnan et al and that they are more than just “unfounded assumptions.

“When playing the ultimatum game, chimpanzees and children shifted their behavior from selfish offers in the preference test to more equitable ones in the ultimatum game. Why did they do so? All that we can measure is behavior, not motivations. Nonetheless, in human studies equitable outcomes are interpreted as reflecting a sense of fairness, thus this explanation must be considered for the apes as well. Given the genetic similarity between both species, shared explanations are the most parsimonious from an evolutionary perspective. Indeed, Jensen et al. offer no alternative and ignored the similar responses of the children in our study”.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

[seer]

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

Tass, and I gave you studies that directly refuted De Waal. Never mind the fact that in the grape experiment I clearly showed that the inference (or assumption) was unfounded.

Again, did the monkey refuse the cucumber because:

1. He has a sense of fairness.

2. He had a sense of envy.

3. Or the little ape just instinctively prefers grapes to cucumbers.

No one in this debate Tass has given a rational reason why we should infer the first option over the other two. And if you followed the other linked studies in both my links you will find more studies from Jensen and especially Michael Tomasello. The problem Tass is that their studies don't fit your meme so you dismiss them. You have a clear bias.

And let me again quote the summary from the article in Scienceline:

. The real debate, it seems, is over how to conduct this kind of research. And until researchers can design experiments that they all agree about, the debate will likely go on.

[JimL]

No one in this debate Tass has given a rational reason why we should infer the first option over the other two.

Sure we have seer, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and there is absolutely no doubt that you will continue to ignore, or rationalize, any evidence that counters your belief.

"The monkey in the experiment refuses to pull the chain to receive a reward of food once he realizes that doing so will not only get him a treat, but will also electrocute his fellow monkey." No rational maximizing on the monkeys part there!

[Doug Shaver]

I was referring to seer's refusal to acknowledge the validity of inferences made by leading primatologists

There is a mighty big difference between "your assumptions are unwarranted" and "your inference is invalid." If you're having trouble seeing that difference, then you have no business trying to defend any viewpoint.

[Tassman]

Sure we have seer, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and there is absolutely no doubt that you will continue to ignore, or rationalize, any evidence that counters your belief.

What Jim said^^

"The monkey in the experiment refuses to pull the chain to receive a reward of food once he realizes that doing so will not only get him a treat, but will also electrocute his fellow monkey." No rational maximizing on the monkeys part there!

Precisely! Seer just doesn't want to know.

There is a mighty big difference between "your assumptions are unwarranted" and "your inference is invalid." If you're having trouble seeing that difference, then you have no business trying to defend any viewpoint.

Indeed, but you’re ignoring the context. It was seer dismissing de Waal’s valid inferences as unwarranted assumptions, not I. This has been the whole point of the disagreement between us.

[seer]

Sure we have seer, you just refuse to acknowledge it, and there is absolutely no doubt that you will continue to ignore, or rationalize, any evidence that counters your belief.

"The monkey in the experiment refuses to pull the chain to receive a reward of food once he realizes that doing so will not only get him a treat, but will also electrocute his fellow monkey." No rational maximizing on the monkeys part there!

Jim, one study at a time. I have not read the above study and you did not link the actual study. So I don't know if the monkey's were trained to do this or not, or if the study has been repeated. Tass did link the De Waal video. So I offered three plausible reasons for the monkey refusing the cucumber - why do choose one over the other two? And I will remind you Jim, in the wild, primate Alpha males will take the food and females from the weaker males. Are they showing a "sense" of fairness in those cases?