What is the difference between animal and reflective knowledge? How can these types of knowledge be used to evaluate Gettier cases? Animal knowledge is acquired by one’s intellectual virtue, like using our own senses to perceive our true beliefs. This is an externalist form of knowledge because in order to have it, we don’t have to be aware of the processes underlie it. On the other hand, reflective knowledge is internalist knowledge.
Is it intelligence that determines the animal’s self-worth and right to live, or is it that animals may possess the same if not identical Neuroanatomy of humans? Suzuki’s primary question examines if the rational behind animal testing is that these animals are dissimilar to human beings; therefore, pain can be inflicted upon these animals without guilt. Suzuki purposes, whether or not the animals need be so close to the human species for the results to be meaningful; Suzuki furthers this inquiry, through his demonstration of logos and ethos. When Suzuki explains the research he has conducted on fruit flies as an alternative to the more commonly used mammals;
“Hunting the First Hominid” Pat Shipman Hunting the First Hominid, Pat Shipman is focused on finding the first hominid. Anthropologists are in hopes of finding the earliest ancestors to identify why humans are the way they are. He wants to answer such questions as to how people became and evolved. Shipman had many main ideas; fossils discovered in different parts of world helping us to slightly distinguish between hominids and apes, features that differentiate apes from humans, although it may be slightly difficult, as well as the two trophies of the bipedal hominid, Aripithecus ramidus kadabba and Orrorin. The article was a difficult read with a target audience of anthropologist or people interested in the topic.
Plato was the one that proposed that it was the brain that was indeed the organ of all reasoning. Not everyone was in agreement. Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and G. W. Leibniz were all very important in the development of modern psychology and all had their own mind body theories that have proved to be of the upmost importance in biopsychology. The relationship between biological psychology and other fields in psychology and neuroscience can be explained, by saying that humans may serve as experimental subjects in behavioral neuroscience. But a great deal of the experimental text in behavioral neuroscience originates from the study of animals not humans.
It helps the transfer of information from short term memory into long term memory. (Willingham, 2007) The brain also helps with problem solving and reasoning skills. In order for cognitive functioning in the brain to work correctly it needs to be able to transmit signals from the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere. When signals are received from the left side of the body they go to the right side of the brain and visa versa. The brain also helps coordinate movement.
Outline and evaluate evidence for intelligence in non-human animals Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Psychologists have exploited this concept in many ways to try and determine whether non-human animals are capable of intelligence. From social learning it is logical to assume that, since non-human animals are able to both acquire and use new behaviours, they must be intelligent in some way. Woodruff and Premack (1979) observed chimpanzees and found that they have the ability to intentionally deceive their keepers. Having seen their food hidden in one of two containers, the chimpanzee indicated to the keeper which container she wanted.
The brain is the powerhouse of human behavior, and the biological perspective is all about the study of the brain, aspects like genetics, immune system, nervous system, and how the brain interacts with these different pieces to make you different. Why we do what we do is what this perspective is all about, and by using this perspective you don’t just have a bunch of assumptions but you can now collect facts and cold hard reasoning, to help solve the hardest of physiological questions. The psychological perspective that I believe does not accurately describe human behavior is the Evolutionary Perspective. First off this perspective is not merely based on fact but on logic, reasoning, and problem solving. It is more of an educated suggestion with facts that seem to fit the puzzle.
Captive Chimps in Relation to Humans Marshonda Theus Park University Abstract In my paper I will be discussing the comparisons in captive chimps and primates and captive humans. Psychology is important because it allows us to study and understand the behavior and mental processes in humans and animals. It is so important for us to understand the way the chimps and primates mental processes and behaviors because everything from their anatomy to the way that they communicate is similar to us as humans. I invite you to read and explore with me the similarities in the psyche of chimps and primates in comparison to humans. It will be covering the areas of the human versus chimp brains, evolution from ape theory, diet, communication, and the documentary of Koko to prove that chimps and humans should share the same branch in the animal world.
While animals may simply act upon aggressive impulses, humans have linguistic abilities to be able to communicate with an aggressor more effectively, reasoning skills which allow us to determine whether an aggressive act is the best option, as well as empathy to understand how our actions could affect others. Therefore we have the ability to not act aggressively even if we are predisposed to it. This highlights another key issue: free will. This theory is very deterministic, predicting that if a person possesses a particular gene then they will be an aggressive person. However this does not take into account free will: we can choose whether or not to carry out an action.
In the article, Jeremy Rifkin shows that it would be illogical to disagree that animals have human-like qualities through studies. In one of the studies from the Gorilla Foundation in Northern California, “Koko, the 300-pound gorilla… was taught sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand English words.” I find it strange that anyone could possibly disagree with Rifkin’s argument about gorillas after reading how Koko could not only communicate with, but also understand humans. Rifkin uses a lot of research in his argument from prestigious universities such as Oxford and Harvard. In one example he explains a study from Oxford University that showed that two birds used tools to acquire food. In his other example he stated that Harvard and 25 other law schools have courses on animal rights.