How to explain interactions in nature without resorting to anthropomorphism

[DJEN]

It always annoyed me. You see, such acts don't really bring about good comparisons.

[Camacha]

It always annoyed me. You see, such acts don't really bring about good comparisons.

Are we talking about wildlife or other types of interactions?

[DJEN]

Are we talking about wildlife or other types of interactions?

Physics and evolution, in particular.

[cantab]

Have a read of The Selfish Gene, Dawkin's handles this issue quite well, relating such "anthropomorphic" explanations to more direct consideration of selection of genes. And also - what is the main topic of the book - explains how altruistic behaviour in individuals can be to the non-altruistic, 'selfish', benefits of genes influencing behaviour, and thus how altruism can evolve at all.

[LLlAMnYP]

Anthropomorphism? As in "How can I describe the attractive force between an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom without resorting to drawing two happy little anthropomorphic balls colored red and blue holding hands?"

Upd: Because I really don't see the problem. There wasn't much anthropomorphism back when I was studying, say, condensed matter physics

The theory of evolution might have some thoughts on altruism and such, but in general, especially so in physics, I don't come across anthropomorphisms often. Maybe you could elaborate your question somewhat further?

Edited October 12, 2014 by LLlAMnYP

[Nibb31]

It always annoyed me. You see, such acts don't really bring about good comparisons.

Yet another thread where you ask stupid questions.

Your question assumes that it is common practice to explain physics and evolution with anthromorphism, which simply isn't true. Therefore your question is meaningless.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Nibb31

[rtxoff]

There's no such thing as a stupid question.

[shynung]

It's not a stupid question, but it's certainly a loaded one.

[YNM]

Simple : one always search for the simplest, easiest to be unterstanded explanation, mostly when talking to the general public. You'd need to mention similar things (or interaction) to give some idea. And most interactions are imaged clearest in antrophomorphism.

Unless you also talks to other people that understands it slightly and already having some imagination about it...

[sal_vager]

No need to be like that Nibb, but I do agree with shynung

[Nuke]

There's no such thing as a stupid question.

what color is a purple unicorn?

[NFUN]

what color is a purple unicorn?

Trick question! You see*, the only real unicorns are Pink and Invisible, so the answer is pink!

*Second person is all too common.

I'm relatively sure the OP was referring to the tendency, particularly in pre-college science, for interactions to be described as 'wants' or 'tries', such as gas molecules want to move to areas of lower pressure and they will try to do so. YNM has it right, in that it is usually easier to explain interactions in such a manner. The disrespect DEJN is really uncalled for, it is common in many areas, especially outside of professional discussion.

Usually it is better to use less human, desire-based words when the reason for an interaction is presumed to be known, and the reason should be explained when the audience doesn't know. For example, gas molecules' random motions lead them to elastically bounce off of other gas molecules, so less dense areas of gas lead to less interaction and thus less 'repulsion'.

/it would really be embarrassing if I was wrong in my example, but the point stands

[peadar1987]

I think the "electrons 'want' to be in the lowest energy state" sort of example is the clearest one.

It's a perfectly clear and acceptable way of explaining the situation when you don't want to go into a huge amount of detail behind it. I think most people are quite capable of working out on their own that electrons don't have tiny electron brains which they use to make decisions about where they want to go.

[-Velocity-]

It's a perfectly clear and acceptable way of explaining the situation when you don't want to go into a huge amount of detail behind it. I think most people are quite capable of working out on their own that electrons don't have tiny electron brains which they use to make decisions about where they want to go.

Yup.

In fact, I think that science is even guilty of not enough anthropomorphism in one case in particular- non-human animal behavior.

For decades, anthropomorphism was discouraged. Animals did not have desires, wants, emotions, or thoughts. To suggest so was scientifically taboo. I guess the idea was that, since we cannot ask animals what they are feeling and cannot directly probe their thoughts, then we might as well just ignore the topic altogether? Or was the denial that animals are sentient for the justification of some of the truly horrific, torturous experiments that they were subjected to? (And before you start claiming "But animals are NOT sentient!!!!111", please understand what the word "sentience" means first.)

To ignore the very observable and obvious fact that non-human animals have sentience is one of the heights of human arrogance. To suggest that humans are the first and only animals to achieve sentience is simply illogical. By ignoring the existence of non-human animal minds we miss something vital about non-human animals, and about ourselves.

Only in recent years has the tide reversed. Scientists have finally started to acknowledge that anthropomorphism may not that un-scientific when applied to animals. They have brains with very similar structures and properties to our own (especially the mammals), and exhibit similar behaviors. Animals brains feeling certain emotion states are affected by the same neurochemicals as our brains are; functional MRIs show that the same brain regions are responsible for the same perceptions and behaviors in humans and animals. Finally we are forced to admit that humans and non-human animals "differ only in degree, not in kind".

When trying to understand an animals behavior, it is important to understand that we are animals too. Thus, why should our interpretation for the reason behind some animal's behavior not be considered at all? True, we CAN be biased and imbue an animal with human-like motivations it does not in fact have, so we DO have to be careful; but the same time, we SHOULD leverage our commonality with animals to our advantage when attempting to understand their behavior! We should balance our anthropomorphism with caution, not eliminate it entirely!

Edited October 13, 2014 by |Velocity|

[Camacha]

Yup.

In fact, I think that science is even guilty of not enough anthropomorphism in one case in particular- non-human animal behavior.

For decades, anthropomorphism was discouraged. Animals did not have desires, wants, emotions, or thoughts. To suggest so was scientifically taboo. I guess the idea was that, since we cannot ask animals what they are feeling and cannot directly probe their thoughts, then we might as well just ignore the topic altogether? Or was the denial that animals are sentient for the justification of some of the truly horrific, torturous experiments that they were subjected to?

I wholeheartedly agree there. There almost seems to be this odd notion that there is a divide between the humans species and other species. That the emotions and feelings that we have can only be found humans and that the mere idea of other animals can have those too is ridiculous. While I do agree that we should be careful projecting our own experiences and feelings too quickly onto other species without any evidence, there is also little reason to exclude these feelings, emotions and even thoughts. Our brains may be relatively complex, I have a hard time believing they are substantially different in all those ways. Or let me put in differently - I do not see much evidence to do so. And, of course, if nature does one thing well it is adapting what it has to a new situation. while retaining what works. The exact circumstances of an internal stimulus might differ, I think it is quite likely that the stimulus itself might not be that different.

Funny thing is, the more we learn about this matter through MRI scanners and whatnot, the more it appear this is actually the case. We even know that spiders have to consciously release their leg when it is caught by something. The idea that humans are so different from other animals is a bit ridiculous and almost seems to date back to times where the idea that man was destined for something was prevalent.

[-Velocity-]

I wholeheartedly agree there. There almost seems to be this odd notion that there is a divide between the humans species and other species. That the emotions and feelings that we have can only be found humans and that the mere idea of other animals can have those too is ridiculous... The idea that humans are so different from other animals is a bit ridiculous and almost seems to date back to times where the idea that man was destined for something was prevalent.

It's call antropocentrism- this idea that humanity is superior to everything, that nothing else matters besides humanity, that we are naturally entitled to "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".

I think it's the source of some of our greatest crimes. It's an uncivilized attitude based on the bestial rules of nature where only the strong survive- humans found we could kill anything and destroy anything and it went to our heads. The whole point of civilization and being civilized is about abandoning the uncaring, unforgiving, brutal rules of nature and building a world where compassionate intelligent beings decide what is fair and right.

We still find it deeply embedded in our society. Even though we're starting to identify this as being a flaw in ourselves, it's still deeply embedded- look at science fiction, for example. It's still all about "humanity" vs. <whatever>. I think that new "Interstellar" movie coming out looks kinda disgusting or hilarious, I'm not sure which. "We were never supposed to save Earth, we were supposed to leave it" I think is one of the quotes in the preview. So we destroyed Earth, and the movie is about finding the next habitable, life-bearing world for us to destroy next? I would hope Matthew Mcconaughey fails or a more enlightened alien race would swoop in and wipe us out first.

[CaptainKipard]

... based on the bestial rules of nature where only the strong survive ...

Based on the misconception that the strongest survive. Many people don't know that survival in the evolutionary context is based on adaptability, not strength.

Aggression and greed have a basis in our evolutionary past but are separate issues.

[-Velocity-]

Based on the misconception that the strongest survive. Many people don't know that survival in the evolutionary context is based on adaptability, not strength.

Aggression and greed have a basis in our evolutionary past but are separate issues.

I was simplifying things, you missed the point. And it's not all about adaptability. There's plenty of specialist and semi-specialist species out there that are doing quite fine. A more fit, "stronger" organism is more likely to procreate than a less fit, "weaker" organism. So you can't simplify it into "adaptability" either. But that's missing the point, the point is that the laws of nature are heartless and cruel and NOT something we should model our civilization on, and I think that includes recognizing the uncivilized nature of anthropocentrism.

Edited October 14, 2014 by |Velocity|

[CaptainKipard]

Alright. Getting back to the question, I think one option is to reverse the thinking and explain human behaviour in terms of nature.

"Naturomorphism" let's say.