It’s still anecdotal evidence which turns into common sense.
You mean how the “anecdotal evidence” that the earth is actually round turned into “common sense?”
Yeah, you’re completely right - none of that shit should be trusted until an overmoneyed dork with a fancy piece of tertiary education institution stationary shows up to prove how stupid we are for doing anything without his approval.
I just always wonder what we gain scientifically with these kind of studies. Why do we need to prove this? Aren’t there any more important issues these scientists could use their time and money on?
I’m asking in all earnestness. What is the benefit of this knowlege?
There’s been scientific and philosophical debates for a long time about which cognitive traits are specific to humans and which are shared across species, and which trait is specific to each group.
This is just another element to add to this debate.
If you’re wondering how this can be applied, it’s not the researcher’s job to know. A lot of the time, a discovery’s practical applications are only found decades after the discovery itself. Some are never used, but we can’t know in advance which knowledge will be useful.
So ideally, those who work in fundamental research needn’t consern themselves with the potential use of their work, they seek knowledge for itself. If there’s useful stuff in there, applied scientists and engineers will pick it up later.
Ideally, but unfortunately, researchers may need to convince a patron that their research will be useful if they need private fundings, which can be a problem. Sometimes, they’ll have to put a little bullshit in their pitch for companies. But since this probably wasn’t a very expensive study, maybe public grants were enough. Or maybe they convinced some company that they could use it to promote cat antidepressants.
So many of those people treat their cat like a lamp though. Of course your cat is a “loner sociopath” - if you barely interact with it and never give it attention or enrichment it’s going to fuck off and do its own thing without you.
Of course they do. Did we really need a study for that?
Your comment reads like a Facebook comment. That’s the whole point of science, don’t trust common sense, prove it.
This has nothing to do with common sense - it’s easily observable behavior that any experienced pet owner could tell you about.
deleted by creator
You mean how the “anecdotal evidence” that the earth is actually round turned into “common sense?”
Yeah, you’re completely right - none of that shit should be trusted until an overmoneyed dork with a fancy piece of tertiary education institution stationary shows up to prove how stupid we are for doing anything without his approval.
deleted by creator
I just always wonder what we gain scientifically with these kind of studies. Why do we need to prove this? Aren’t there any more important issues these scientists could use their time and money on?
I’m asking in all earnestness. What is the benefit of this knowlege?
There’s been scientific and philosophical debates for a long time about which cognitive traits are specific to humans and which are shared across species, and which trait is specific to each group. This is just another element to add to this debate.
If you’re wondering how this can be applied, it’s not the researcher’s job to know. A lot of the time, a discovery’s practical applications are only found decades after the discovery itself. Some are never used, but we can’t know in advance which knowledge will be useful.
So ideally, those who work in fundamental research needn’t consern themselves with the potential use of their work, they seek knowledge for itself. If there’s useful stuff in there, applied scientists and engineers will pick it up later. Ideally, but unfortunately, researchers may need to convince a patron that their research will be useful if they need private fundings, which can be a problem. Sometimes, they’ll have to put a little bullshit in their pitch for companies. But since this probably wasn’t a very expensive study, maybe public grants were enough. Or maybe they convinced some company that they could use it to promote cat antidepressants.
deleted by creator
The whole point of science is to study to prove or disprove theories. So yes.
*hypotheses
Evolution is only a THEORY! Like gravity!
I am absolutely pro science. But in all earnestness, what is the use of such a study?
deleted by creator
That which is easily observable is not “anecdotal.”
deleted by creator
A lot of people legitimately think cats are loner sociopaths. So yes, some science to back up the cat owners of the world would be appreciated.
So many of those people treat their cat like a lamp though. Of course your cat is a “loner sociopath” - if you barely interact with it and never give it attention or enrichment it’s going to fuck off and do its own thing without you.
Or a bunch try to treat their cat like a dog, which also won’t work.
That says more about the people who think this than cats.
So you need serious scientists to spend time, resources and money on a scientific study so you can tell cat haters “Gotcha. I told you so!”??
You wouldn’t believe how much good stuff we have because we were finally able to point to a study to shut up haters.
Definitive proof is harder to dismiss than an old wives tale.
While I get your point, “cats have feelings” is hardly on the same level as old wives tales lol