- Aug 13, 2019
- Jan 3, 2020
- Mar 19, 2018
- Jan 21, 2020
the Large role in accumulation by the person of knowledge is played by experiments, including with use of animals.
No, the speech not about a vivisection and not about cosmetics testing. We speak about the experiments directed to studying of psychology of animals.
But unless insufficiently just observations, you can ask? There is not enough – and that is why.
Thought process is what occurs in the head (both at animals, and at us), so, it cannot be seen. And the only way to understand what is created in the head of those who cannot tell us about it – to make an experiment. Then it becomes more clear as animals think and as they solve any problems.
The central doctrine of experimental psychology consists that the same behavior can be explained with a set of the most different psychological mechanisms. And even if the behavior of two animal species (and even two people) is identical, it does not mean at all that this behavior is controlled by the same mechanisms.
For example if you shake hands with someone at a meeting, you can rejoice to the old acquaintance or with sincere interest to welcome new. Or just to show politeness on duty, dreaming to appear on other end of the globe. Behavior one – the reasons different. But some dogs are able "to shake hands" too! However "driving force" of this action at them absolutely another though externally the gesture looks similar.
The anthropomorphism is peculiar to much of us. The anthropomorphism is an attributing of human lines an animal. And we are inclined to treat behavior of animals, proceeding from human features. But often such explanation is wrong – animals differ from us even if work according to the similar scenario.
Speaking about anthropomorphism, it is possible to remember the contemporary and friend Charles Darwin of George Romanes. Charles Darwin considered that the abyss between animals and people is not so big as it can seem, and to explain evolutionary approach in forces how thinking of animals turned into thinking of people. And George Romanes collected a set of stories how animals solved any problems, and published the book "Evolution of Mind of Animals". But in many stories quite difficult behavior of animals spoke in terms of thinking and behavior of people.
However animals – it is not simple "our smaller brothers", they – types, and thinking, absolutely other than us, at them another.
And after George Romanes the book about comparative psychology was published by the psychologist Lloyd Morgan. Observations of his dog were an incitement to writing of the book. He repeatedly saw how the dog makes quite difficult actions to open gate and to get out to walk. The scientist asked a question: what allowed a dog to solve quite complex problem? And he began to watch how different dogs try to break loose from an imprisonment.
It became clear that success is connected not with the fact that the dog, like the person, analyzed a way of the device of the lock and at last opened it. In each case it was the result of a set of attempts, a trial and error method before the dog found action which helped to receive freedom.
Elisabetta Visalberghi made quite indicative experiment with Capuchins. She offered them a transparent tube in which nut lay. The Capuchin had to use a stick to push out nut. But there was a hitch: approximately in the middle of a tube the small container was located and if the monkey tried to push out nut not from that party, it fell in a container, and the Capuchin was left with nothing. At the same time, to receive the desirable, monkeys had to put a stick in that end of a tube which was further from nut. There was a task to find out whether monkeys understand what is laws of gravitation?
Monkeys quickly enough learned to get nuts, but another is interesting. When the tube was turned in such a way that the container in which nut could fall appeared above (that is it was possible to push out delicacy already from any party), Capuchins still pushed out nut from the distant end that it did not pass by a container.
That is, in fact, they did not understand the way "works" of a container – but caught that nut can be received only if to push out it from a distant opening. And to attribute them in this case a human way of thinking would be a big mistake.