Yet another scientific theory disproven

[MichiganMat]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Are you German?

Helmut Prior of the Institute of Psychology at Goethe University in Frankfurt

Well what do a bunch of Frankfurters know about money anyways? - Sniper

[red-beard]

Not surprised. Heckle and Jeckle always seemed pretty smart to me.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

it's a shame more people weren't self aware.

[dhoward]

Pardon me, you seem to have a dot on your chest there...

[kstar]

I'd also like to know what theory was overturned with this "news"?

The "dumb magpie" theory?

I continue to be entertained by the folks who rally against science. What wonderful irony.


Best,

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I'd also like to know what theory was overturned with this "news"?

The "dumb magpie" theory?

I continue to be entertained by the folks who rally against science. What wonderful irony.


Best,

The long held m21sniper "dumb magpie" theory. This is monumental!

[RWebb]

"It had been thought only chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants shared the human ability to recognize their own bodies in a mirror."

This was not really a scientific theory. It is just that only those species had been established as being self-aware enough to score a positive on the MIS test.

Anyone interested in "bird brains" might want to read some of the books by Irene Pepperberg on her African Gray Parrot.

Also, Russ Balda has done some great work with spatial memory in corvids (jays, crows, etc.). I think he finally put out a book on it also.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

This illustrates a point I was thinking about a few days ago while driving...

Science has the luxury of never being wrong. Scientists make statements based on current evidence and if that evidence later proves to be invalid or superceded by other evidence, the scientists were not 'wrong' before, they just had inadequate evidence.

Well, not really true, but you are on to something. My doctoral advisor used to advise me to scatter a few "weasel words" into the manuscript before we published it...

[kstar]

Crows are smart.

[Facey]

until u read the study itself never trust what a media source reports, one of the first rules of science is go to the source. and it actually reads a little different, but it is a valid summarization.. though the source is no longer at your posted link.

also, the article contradicts itself ,
"It had been thought only chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants shared the human ability to recognize their own bodies in a mirror."

"After finding this kind of intelligence in apes, many people thought it had developed once in one evolutionary line with humans at the end. The bird studies show it has developed at least twice."


as well it shows a slight mis-understanding on the theory of evolution, which is one of the most mis-understood theories, but generally those writing in regards to it do not make such mistakes.

apes are NOT a form of less evolved humans, evolution is not working towards anything, all species presently existing (and not extinct) with the ability to successfully reproduce and have their offspring reproduce are essentially equally evolved, the environment dictates what evolved is.

smarter, faster, more moral, more beautiful, are not signs of evolution. surviving is a sign of evolution, while spreading your genes makes it better.

the research of commonly believed animals/living organisms that can self recognize needs ALOT of work, and i am by no means a biologist... image self recognition takes a big more work, but the list is longer then what they presented...

anyways it does come as a surprise tat magpies can...it would be interesting to see if the test can be repeated. I know it comes from a reliable source but doesn't seem like a great paper...

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Ah, but in the scientific realm, everyone is encouraged to challenge theories and update the body of knowledge as necessary. Theocrats simply excommunicate/execute those who come up with information that doesn't fit their world view.

I certainly agree that science encourages challenges to dogma and new ideas.

I guess I'm not communicating my thought well, which is probably partly because it is a wispy and nebulous idea to me as well.

If science is open and admits or allows that there is a distinct possibility that their current dogma is partially or even completely wrong then I have no problem.

My concern comes when people use science to make absolute statements, knowing that the science itself isn't absolute. In the past, people who challenged the prevailing scientific dogma were ridiculed and sometimes persecuted. Ingnatz Semmelweis was insane before he died...at least some of this was brought on by the relentless ridicule his crazy ideas brought him. Oh, his crazy idea was that there was an unknown substance being transferred from one birthing woman to another by the midwife which caused "childbed fever". He asked that his midwives wash their hands between deliveries. Although his death rate dropped dramatically, he was driven from the ranks of medicine and labeled a raving lunatic.

How silly that there could be some substance (or organism) that could be transferred on the bloody hands of the midwife from one woman to another which causes an infection. Ridiculous notion.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

My concern comes when people use science to make absolute statements, knowing that the science itself isn't absolute. .

Some science is absolute.

[kstar]

I thought I would comment again.

The thread title "Yet another scientific theory disproven" has a tone that seems to imply that science is on the way out as an effective tool. At best, that science is somehow a flawed tool for figuring things out.

I find this notion absolutely absurd and . . . shallow. Unless one is living in the woods wiping one's buttocks with leaves, one is almost certainly immersed in and reliant upon the fruits of science.

Where's the counter-point to all of the rebuttals, Mr. Sniper? We're waiting.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Some science is absolute.

Such as?

[K. Roman]

Did you say "Such As?"

[IMG][/IMG]

[the]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

The thread title "Yet another scientific theory disproven" has a tone that seems to imply that science is on the way out as an effective tool. At best, that science is somehow a flawed tool for figuring things out.

The scientific method and the so-called "scientific revolution" is what, maybe a few hundred years old? In the history of the universe, or even human history, that's nothing!

The whole thing is just a fad.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Such as?

Your a smart bloke, I'm sure you can figure out a couple.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

His crazy idea was that there was an unknown substance being transferred from one birthing woman to another by the midwife which caused "childbed fever". He asked that his midwives wash their hands between deliveries. Although his death rate dropped dramatically, he was driven from the ranks of medicine and labeled a raving lunatic.

How silly that there could be some substance (or organism) that could be transferred on the bloody hands of the midwife from one woman to another which causes an infection. Ridiculous notion.

Still an issue in the medical profession, too.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/141/1/I-38

[Willem Fick]

I had the recent displeasure of allowing myself to get involved in an argument with someone who felt that his practical experience was enough to challenge and disprove the Newton's laws.

I realised something from that experience though:

Never challenge a pig to a mud wrestling contest. You end up getting dirty, and the pig actually enjoys himself.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

If science is open and admits or allows that there is a distinct possibility that their current dogma is partially or even completely wrong then I have no problem.

This exemplifies your misunderstanding of science, Rick. Quite surprising given you're a doc.