Science used to maintain objectivity by warning researchers not to assign human characteristics such as emotion and motivation to animals. However, since the sharpening of the debate between evolution and creationism and the furor of animal activism coupled with the irrational bonding to even inanimate stuffed animals, there is now a reversal of this principle. It is not my intent to argue the evolution/creation debate but rather to point to the polarization of thought which has tended to clearly bolster argument for evolution well beyond science and take it into philosophy.

The philosophical argument is that if animals were biologically had a common ancestry with man, then more subtle traits of personality and emotion MUST also be shared. This cacophony has raised the battle cry that animals have rights the same as humans.

Yet there is always the jump from science to philosophical metaphysics when "research" interprets experiments which is claimed to demonstrate the human characteristics. Down at the shore, there was an arcade machine with a live chicken in it. After you put your coins in the machine the chicken is released and comes out and pecks out the song, Turkey in the Straw. Now there are two possible explanations for this phenomena:

1. Chickens love and appreciate music. They share the musical ability of humans.

2. Watching closely you can see the chicken has actually been conditioned to play the tune.

While there have been charlatans who deliberately have misled people such as magicians, because of the lack of objectivity many people today are concluding things based on presuppostions rather than data. For instance, when I was little I had been told about how magicians can do magic. I was amazed because I assumed that magic was real that the tricks were real. However, I quickly learned that there were two explanations for magic:

1. Magic is real.

2. Magic is based on a trick.

#2 is reality based on objective research. Just because it is not possible to always conduct the proper research.

We do not conclude magic is real simply because we cannot disprove it. Many conclusions about magic and chickens is based on the fallacy, what other explanation can there be? Based on the presuppositions which are self-imposed for the most part, it is reinforcing to explain things within personal comfort zone.

"it is reinforcing to explain things within personal comfort zone." Seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation for a Christain's belief in creationism.

TheRanger: "since the sharpening of the debate between evolution and creationism..."

LeRoy: What debate is that? The debate ended about eighty years ago, when the last serious scientific objection to evolution, stemming from Lord Kelvin's argument concerning the age of the Sun, was overcome by our modern understanding that the Sun is powered by thermonuclear fusion.

Humans don't spring forth being able to play music either, they are as you say "conditioned" for it.

Your rambling, pointless, asinine rhetoric is especially sad because of its derivative, paint-by-numbers structure, breezily hitting all the favorite buttons of the ideologue without bothering to add anything resembling a new twist or an original thought. You--

A) play the part of the amused and impartial voice of moderate reason: Of course I wouldn't dream of taking sides, but since nobody asked, here's my opinion anyway.

B) You inflate the arguments of your enemies to a 'cacophanous' 'battle cry'--obviously they're hysterical ideologues, listen to how they rant and rave and gnash their teeth! I, on the other hand...

C) Rather than submit anything like quatifiale, verifiable evidence, you play a bunch of weighted thought games in which 'reason' leads you in a tight circular pattern right back to where you started, and

D) conclude on a specious point of philosophical gibberish.

You are like a machine in which a bunch of words crash against each other in your head. Sometimes they fall out of your mouth. This was a horrible and depressing post to read after such an interesting and informative article.

Also, go back to first grade and learn how to spell.

You indeed have the intelligence of an octopus. I will have to reconsider my thoughts.

Your attempt at erudition through excess verbage is laughable.

"quatifiale"?

What are you talking about.

Your argumentation is also logically flawed. How can I disprove an octopus or a dog has emotions especially if they don't?

I did present some counter examples of what the approach to problem solving might provide. However, since you also are thinking on the level of the octopus, it must be a little difficult.

You are right. Wheat and corn scream in pain when they are harvested and should be given full civil rights that all life should enjoy.

Maybe your strawman should be given full civil rights.

I love your argument: I am right because I am right.

I have not made an arguement, I'm just trying to understand yours.

You will have to elaborate for me.

<link>

<link>

<link>

Add to the pseudoscience (like my musical chicken) the popularist movies like "I Robot" and "Short Circuit" and the post modern "Matrix" movies, you have the sense that humans are nothing but complex machines.

However, the questions still remains:

Is Motzart the chicken really making and appreciating music?

If humans are really only complex machines and/or extensions of other bio life forms, then shouldn't all life forms deserve the same respect/rights/whatever?

I think you made that one up.