I just always wonder what we gain scientifically with these kind of studies. Why do we need to prove this? Aren’t there any more important issues these scientists could use their time and money on?
I’m asking in all earnestness. What is the benefit of this knowlege?
There’s been scientific and philosophical debates for a long time about which cognitive traits are specific to humans and which are shared across species, and which trait is specific to each group.
This is just another element to add to this debate.
If you’re wondering how this can be applied, it’s not the researcher’s job to know. A lot of the time, a discovery’s practical applications are only found decades after the discovery itself. Some are never used, but we can’t know in advance which knowledge will be useful.
So ideally, those who work in fundamental research needn’t consern themselves with the potential use of their work, they seek knowledge for itself. If there’s useful stuff in there, applied scientists and engineers will pick it up later.
Ideally, but unfortunately, researchers may need to convince a patron that their research will be useful if they need private fundings, which can be a problem. Sometimes, they’ll have to put a little bullshit in their pitch for companies. But since this probably wasn’t a very expensive study, maybe public grants were enough. Or maybe they convinced some company that they could use it to promote cat antidepressants.
I don’t know as biology(?) is not my area of expertise. The way I see it it can be valuable for us as a society to be more empathetic? I know you shouldn’t need science for that but hey …
It’s still anecdotal evidence which turns into common sense.
You mean how the “anecdotal evidence” that the earth is actually round turned into “common sense?”
Yeah, you’re completely right - none of that shit should be trusted until an overmoneyed dork with a fancy piece of tertiary education institution stationary shows up to prove how stupid we are for doing anything without his approval.
Not sure why you’re getting so acid. I never said you can only believe in scientists, just pointed its usefulness to validate beliefs. Can you show me where I said it?
You seem to have a massive negative bias against “overmoneyed dork” which I assume is scientists, so I don’t think we’re going anywhere here.
And to further your ignorance: Ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and mathematicians helped prove it… so one of the “dorks”.
Your comment reads like a Facebook comment. That’s the whole point of science, don’t trust common sense, prove it.
I just always wonder what we gain scientifically with these kind of studies. Why do we need to prove this? Aren’t there any more important issues these scientists could use their time and money on?
I’m asking in all earnestness. What is the benefit of this knowlege?
There’s been scientific and philosophical debates for a long time about which cognitive traits are specific to humans and which are shared across species, and which trait is specific to each group. This is just another element to add to this debate.
If you’re wondering how this can be applied, it’s not the researcher’s job to know. A lot of the time, a discovery’s practical applications are only found decades after the discovery itself. Some are never used, but we can’t know in advance which knowledge will be useful.
So ideally, those who work in fundamental research needn’t consern themselves with the potential use of their work, they seek knowledge for itself. If there’s useful stuff in there, applied scientists and engineers will pick it up later. Ideally, but unfortunately, researchers may need to convince a patron that their research will be useful if they need private fundings, which can be a problem. Sometimes, they’ll have to put a little bullshit in their pitch for companies. But since this probably wasn’t a very expensive study, maybe public grants were enough. Or maybe they convinced some company that they could use it to promote cat antidepressants.
I don’t know as biology(?) is not my area of expertise. The way I see it it can be valuable for us as a society to be more empathetic? I know you shouldn’t need science for that but hey …
This has nothing to do with common sense - it’s easily observable behavior that any experienced pet owner could tell you about.
It’s still anecdotal evidence which turns into common sense. You need science and method to validate these things.
You mean how the “anecdotal evidence” that the earth is actually round turned into “common sense?”
Yeah, you’re completely right - none of that shit should be trusted until an overmoneyed dork with a fancy piece of tertiary education institution stationary shows up to prove how stupid we are for doing anything without his approval.
Not sure why you’re getting so acid. I never said you can only believe in scientists, just pointed its usefulness to validate beliefs. Can you show me where I said it?
You seem to have a massive negative bias against “overmoneyed dork” which I assume is scientists, so I don’t think we’re going anywhere here.
And to further your ignorance: Ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and mathematicians helped prove it… so one of the “dorks”.