Have we been wrong in the Social behavior of Rattlesnakes?

[El Jefe]

Sweet. I am not following them.

Hmmm...that seems anti-climatic. :wavey:

 

[Outcast]

It seems as though my brain and fingers were not communicating correctly...LOL

 

[captainjack0000]

After all, this article is stating that even experts can be biased.

I don't know who wrote that in this thread, but my comments on the 1st post and that comment are as follows.

de Waal had some interesting stuff, and while I have not heard of anthropodenial, it doesn't surprise me that it came from de Waal. de Waal studies primates, and science has long thought of humans as being somehow unique from other species, like the rules of the game don't apply to us. And that has been the dominant discourse for a while, hegemonic really. People still cling to this idea. I want to be clear on what I am saying. The dominant forces of nature are applied to people as equally as any other creature. I mean, to some extent we humans are unique. For one, drawing from Carlin, we have hats. No other creature in nature has hats. Humans have modified their environment like no other species on Earth. But we're still subject to the same environmental forces as all of the other animals.

In this hegemonic view though it seems that even experts were baffled when they discovered behavior in animals that came anywhere close to humans, let alone animals that were radically different from us. We can accept that maybe bonobos and chimps have some anthropogenic characteristics, but not a freaking snake! There must be some other explanation.

Was Klauber wrong? I would say, from the evidence presented, that yes he was wrong, but why? He was subject to the same hegemonic forces as any other scientist of the 1950s. That may not justify it, but might help explain it. Maybe he wasn't as self-critical as he could have been, but I don't think that makes him a bad scientist. But it does show that experts can be biased. I would go as far as to say experts cannot be unbiased. Academics are by some people held in high regard because they are to be the most unbiased researchers around. And any good researcher tries to be unbiased. But everybody has bias. Researchers are human, and they're subject to social pressure, emotions, politics, and anything else that has influence over people. I think the best thing for researchers is to recognize there are agendas and try not to let that interfere with doing good science.

 

[bitsy]

I would go as far as to say experts cannot be unbiased. ... But everybody has bias. Researchers are human, and they're subject to social pressure, emotions, politics, and anything else that has influence over people. I think the best thing for researchers is to recognize there are agendas and try not to let that interfere with doing good science.

Absolutely agree. Certainly in my field we're taught this from first year undergraduate and it's been reinforced every year since. We're taught that our first duty as researchers is to be self-critical and aware of any prevailing school of thought which might be directing our perspective.