Animal Belief
If Mary believes a bone is on the lawn, then she literally believes that, though her belief may be mistaken. But, if her pet Fido rushes up to what is in fact a bit of bone-shaped plastic, then Fido does not believe that there is a bone on the lawn. However, the best explanation for Fido’s behavior may be that he initially believed there was a bone on the lawn. Unless we are methodological or analytical behaviorists, the claim that we can best explain the behavior of dumb animals by treating them as if they literally held beliefs (and desires) subject to various rationality constraints is hardly surprising. I argue that this instrumentalism does not support the realist view that dumb animals are literally to be credited with beliefs. In particular, I focus on Davidson’s argument that a creature can have beliefs only if it can be the interpreter of the speech of another. Davidson’s argument, which has not won wide acceptance, is the most subtle examination to date of the relation between belief and language. I examine the premises of his argument, indicate two major criticisms, and attempt to defend his conclusion that dumb animals lack beliefs by adducing supporting arguments.
This paper is concerned with the problem of whether non-language-using creatures literally have beliefs, rather than with the question as to whether it is predictively useful to ascribe beliefs to them. The answer to this latter question is plainly in the affirmative. The issue of belief-attribution to dumb animals is a narrow form of a more general problem, the problem of whether dumb animals can literally be credited with thoughts. Still, it is reasonable to focus on the case of belief since it lies, as it were, at the centre of the cognitive domain. The attribution of any intentional state, such as desire, regret, hope and so on, to a creature presupposes the attribution of belief to that creature.
I
Like many other philosophers, I will kick off with a brief discussion of Descartes’ views which many find wildly implausible. Descartes believed that dumb animals could not be credited with beliefs because he thought they were mindless machines: dumb animals behave as if they feel fear, as if they believe various things, etc., but the truth is that all of the cases where we are inclined to ascribe psychological states to them, can be redescribed solely in terms of internal physiological processes set in motion by mechanical causation.
Shaw, William B., et al. A Photographic History of the Civil War. Six Volumes. New York, New York: The Blue and Grey Press, 1987.
animals believed Squealer was telling the truth about them, even after they found him one
In Meditations, Descartes brings doubt to everything he believes because it is human nature to believe that which is false. He states that most of what he believes comes from the senses and that a lot of times those senses can be deceived. His conclusion of doubting everything is based on his example of a basket of apples. It goes as follows; you have a basket of apples but you fear that some apples have gone bad and you don't want them to rot the others, so you throw all the apples out of the basket. Now that the basket is empty you examine each apple carefully and return the good apples to the basket. This is what he does with his beliefs, he follows and keeps only those beliefs of which he is sure of. Our beliefs as a whole must be discarded and then each individual belief must be looked at carefully before we can accept it. We must only accept those beliefs we feel are good.
Gallagher, Gary W. 2008. Causes won, lost, and forgotten: how Hollywood & popular art shape what we know about the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Despite having polar opposite views, Rene Descartes and David Hume were both very prominent philosophers of their time. They both contemplated the ideas of reasoning within animals and sought to find the truth about the acquisition of knowledge. Both sides had valid points about whether animals can reason, and it really leaves it up to the individual to decide whether animals have the ability to reason or not.
Child welfare system was originated with the goals that social workers would try and alleviate poverty and its impact; however as the years have passed, the child welfare system turned into a child protection system directed toward investigating abuse and neglect, and removing children from families and placing them in foster care, and is no longer prepared to assist in resolving the problems of child poverty (Lindsey, 2004). Child welfare system has been developed around the residual approach which demands that aid should be given only after the family is in crisis or other support groups have failed to meet a child’s minimal needs. However, over the years, there have been different focuses for the child welfare system, whether it involved
...ples ideas based on the operations of our own mind. For example, the idea of a unicorn is also a complex idea, along with God, while many of us have seen a picture of a unicorn someone had to invent the original idea of what a unicorn is without seeing a picture. The operations of our own mind have created this idea of God, which rebuts Descartes’ argument that we have knowledge on the external world because of God. Descartes would argue that Humes’ idea of God is natural and never derived from impressions. Hume’ consequently has the better argument claiming that idea of god is actually based on ideas of perfection and infinity is inferred from the ideas of imperfection and finitude.
The Civil War was the first major conflict to be documented by photography. At the time of the Civil War, it was vital to have public support on both the North and the South side of the dispute. It is also said that if war efforts do not have complete support of its’ citizens that it will not result to any benefits. Photography was one way that was almost guaranteeing support of citizens on the homefront. Photographers had power within their photographs, toying with the pathos of the civilians, and causing them to feel whatever the photographers wanted them to. This power was abused at time by manipulating people’s opinions towards the war. There were pictures coming back from the warfront one after the other which made it impossible for people to feel an emotional connection to the soldiers at war. These photographs allowed events happening miles away to feel like they were closer to home causing people to support the war efforts more heavily. Instead of people having their own opinions during the war, photographers used manipulative
Reaching into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes, ed. A. E. Russon, K. A. Bard & S. T. Parker, pp. 257–77. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He
“... the right question for animals is not ‘Can they reason?’ ‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can they suffer?’ ”
Unlike one of empiricism’s major tenets, Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, Descartes believed that the mind was not a blank slate, but actually came pre-loaded, if you will, with ideas, which are part of our rational nature and that our rational nature allows us to grasp . Descartes begins his journey deep within his own mind by claiming that all truths can be conceived by thinking about them. He calls his method cogito or pure reasoning. His famous words “I think, therefore I am,” describes the way that he thinks the mind is the true reality with the rest of reality being an extension. His example to prove thi...
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
It is nearly impossible to say whether non-human animals are intelligent. Most studies, in this field of psychology, were carried out on primates, and it is thought that these animals are naturally superior. It seems most behaviour in the research discussed in this essay can be explained through association learning, therefore not actually a result of intelligence. It is difficult to falsify whether animals are intelligent or not because, although they are able to solve problems they only show some aspects to suggest ToM.
Animals can be perceived in many different ways. While some humans consider animals to be mindless machines programmed with instinct, others view them as spiritual creatures capable of coherent thought and emotions. I feel that animals are somewhere in the middle. Although they rely heavily on instinct, the ability to feel emotions shows that their mental capacity is not far from that of a human.