> Could it be that the reason why we observe "elephant burial
> rituals" is not that they actually exist, but that because they exhibit
> behavior that is similar to our own, we immediately draw a parallel to that
> and of course remark on what IS, and not what it Appears to be.
It "Appeared" that that you offended and upset by the acedmic use of a term for
folly that had it's root in a racial slur. As to what IS...
Well, we can only comment on behaviors similar to our own, can't we?
> Because we
> only have an understanding of what our rituals are, that is all we have to
> relate these observations to.
Coinkidinkily, the Susan McCarthy goes into that as well. (As does the book):
"KP: Why has there been this long gap that suggests there has been very little
study on animal emotions?
SM: There seem to be many reasons. A major one is the fear of anthropomorphism,
which is ascribing human emotion to things or creatures that can't feel them. So
the word contains an assumption. Scientists speak of committing anthropomorphism
as if it were a sin. And to accuse a scientist of being anthropomorphic is very
serious indeed. We think that many scientists bend much too far over backward to
avoid this sin."
We share very similar limbic systems with most other mammals, so it hardly a leap
to conclude that they might experience similar emotional response to ours.
Sometimes scientists try so hard to be objective that they forget that we are
animals too. And if we are forced to explain animal behavoir without including
emotional responses in them, we need to be able to do the same for the human
animal.
I doubt that either is possible (or even useful).
-Prof. Tim