The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

We don't understand animals

2022-01-20T21:55:30.559Z


Although experiments like those of the gorilla 'Koko' suggested the opposite, scientific evidence says that symbolic language is exclusive to human beings.


There are fields of science in which many expectations are generated and ultimately never met.

One of these fields is related to communication with animals.

Anyone who has a pet will agree that animals can empathize with us and convey feelings.

We can communicate joy, sadness, fun, anger with them... but could we have a dialogue with them similar to the one we have with another person?

Could we convey complex and structured ideas?

Or could we understand the language they use among themselves?

After many years of research, everything seems to indicate that it is an unresolved issue.

It may be thought that man (and his evolutionary ancestors) is the only species capable of developing and using technology, but this is not the case. Some ape species have been shown to use sticks to dig insects out of their burrows, and there are many other examples of tool use in other species. In addition, this knowledge is transmitted within the group, so we can speak of a culture. If there is an undeniably human characteristic, it is the ability to have a symbolic thought and to develop a language. It has never been shown that an animal can do something similar. The ability that I have to explain to someone my vacation last year is unattainable for any animal. Sometimes the opposite has been suggested. Hagiography attributes to Saint Francis the ability to speak with animals.Doctor Dolittle could do it too, but only in fiction. Some researchers argue that they have been able to communicate with primates. Is it really true? Have we been able to communicate with animals? The answer is complex.

In the eighties of the 20th century, researchers such as Allen and Beatrice Gardner, David Premack or Duane Rumbaugh published results of work with chimpanzees in which they stated that they had managed to communicate with them using sign language. However, the media success went to the gorilla

Koko,

trained by animal psychologist Francine Patterson. His keeper said the animal had learned more than 1,000 words in sign language and was capable of holding conversations. Was it really so? The results gave rise to many suspicions. To begin with, it has never been seen that gorillas use their own language in their natural habitat, therefore it is a capacity that is the result of human intervention, in the same way that a tiger in a circus can jump through a burning hoop or a seal play with a ball on their nose, because they have been trained to do so. It can be argued that it is not its own thing, but it can learn a language and use it. Here the problems return. It is true that

Koko

She interacted with her caregiver using sign language, but she never asked a question or started a conversation, she simply responded to the psychologist's gestures... just like a trained animal does. This brings us to the next awkward question. Was

Koko

aware that she was using language and communicating, or was it just a game for her? The logical thing if he had been aware that he had a language is that, in addition to asking questions, he would have tried to develop new signs to elaborate his own speech, or that he would have transmitted that language to other gorillas, but none of this happened. After the time and the initial enthusiasm have passed, and analyzing the results with cold objectivity, everything seems to indicate that we are dealing with a gorilla who is especially adept at learning behaviors (in this case, certain gestures), but who was never capable of having a real dialogue or of being aware of having acquired a language. The fact that these results have not been repeated with any other gorilla or ape and that once

Koko died

the project being canceled seems to reaffirm the idea that we have an example of a very well-trained animal, but not of complex communication between species.

With the language of cetaceans we are faced with a similar dilemma.

It seems evident that they use a sound system to communicate.

We are able to distinguish different languages ​​and dialects, they even use names to address each other, but after decades of research, no one has been able to decipher this language or hold a conversation with a marine mammal using its own language or any other.

Therefore, until proven otherwise, symbolic language remains the heritage of the human species and cannot be shared with any other species.

the mathematical horse

— Investigating animal behavior requires very strict protocols since the researcher's empathy towards the animal, unconsciously, can bias the results.

The best-known case is that of

Clever Hans

, a horse that was apparently capable of arithmetic.

The public proposed an operation and the horse gave as many kicks as the result.

Can a horse learn multiplication tables?

His caretaker believed so.

But when he was not there, the horse failed.

One study showed that the animal recognized its unconscious gestures when it had the correct solution.

His caretaker would be a bad poker player.

JM Mulet is Professor of Biotechnology.

Source: elparis

All news articles on 2022-01-20

You may like

News/Politics 2024-01-31T07:49:54.271Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.