tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post3270940469858742218..comments2008-07-03T14:09:50.385-05:00Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-50596174512267251232008-07-03T13:01:00.000-05:002008-07-03T13:01:00.000-05:00There is no doubt that these guys are full of shit, but a fundamental problem in determining how human cognition arose is figuring out how our extinct ancestors thought. Putting chimpanzees and bonobos through the wringer can only tell us so much, since there is virtually no way to communicate with the precision of language with nonhuman apes.<BR/><BR/>Therein also lies the problem in the quest to get many people to realize that we're animals too.kldicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07924518681285923909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-7953205213716944322008-07-01T08:04:00.000-05:002008-07-01T08:04:00.000-05:00I read this paper (one of the co-authors was my instructor last semester). I tend to think that the debate is not really all that constructive. Besides, very early in the paper, the authors basically say in a footnote something like: "Well of course there's a continuum of cognitive skills. We're just arguing that it's a discontinuous-looking continuum."<BR/><BR/>What is constructive about the paper is the critical review of many of the claims made in the animal cognition literature, and a stark look at what faculties we can confidently attribute to non-human animals. I think they're spot-on in that critique.Derek Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.com