Eliminating bias in experiments

[A. Katz]

>Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:55:26 +0000 (GMT)
>From: Dan Everett <Dan.Everett at man.ac.uk>
>
>Subject: Re: Separating language from biology
>
>> If a child says: "I want a banana" we all assume that he knows what he's
>> talking about. If a chimpanzee says the same thing, people ask: "Yes, but
>> does he have a theory of mind?"
>
>Why would anyone want a 'level playing field'? I am not
>democratic with respect to chimps.

I'm sorry if my metaphor evoked images of democracy. Democracy is
about voting, and I am not suggesting that we vote on this.
In a scientific invesitigation, the outcome is not open to
voting. It is determined by adhering to careful testing
procedures. Bias must be eliminated in order for the result of
the test to be valid. (It's kind of a shame that the idea of bias
has been so politicized.)

You don't need to have any feelings about chimpanzees one way or
another to wish to minimize bias. If you were studying lunar
dust, the same rules would apply. You don't want a circular
definition, because it will not help you to investigate the
facts.

> I know that children have a
>semantics, even if  I cannot follow or misinterpret in specific
>cases.

How do you know this? Could you prove it? What test for the
presence of semantics is applicable that would give the correct
result regardless of what entity it was applied to?

> The child has earned its right to a charitable
>interpretation. The chimp has not. Nor has any other species.

How has the child earned this right? Are you talking about a
specific child or all children? Are you aware that some
anatomically normal, uninjured children can't speak or think?
Does this include them?

>A test simpler than a Turing Test is just this: do the members of the
>species talk to one another with anything remotely showing properties of
>the type that Hockett argued for? And do they do this 'in the wild'.

What do humans do when placed in the wild from infancy? Do they
come up with language?

We can't give credit to individual members of the species for
achievements of the species as a whole. Mozart may have achieved
a great deal as a composer, and he was a human being,
but you can't assume that a human chosen at random has any
musical ability. You have to test them individually.

>There is no reason for assuming a level playing field and many reasons for
>not doing so.

We shouldn't assume anything. We should find out.


     --Aya