A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Computer-savvy canines

This is a weak experiment. They even said they don't know if the dog actually recognized the object as a dog. This does not prove anything whatsoever.

Dog Behavior Blog: Dogs Can Understand Photographs

And you call this conclusive evidence that a dog can recognize his master from a picture?

Dogs Can Understand Photographs

A recent article looked at whether dogs can understand iconic images (Kaminski, J., S. Templemann, J. Call and M. Tomasello. 2009. Domestic dogs comprehend human communication with iconic signs, Developmental Science 12: 831-837).

Iconic images are things like photographs or things that look like the real object. For example, a photograph of a hamburger is an iconic image of a real hamburger. Similarly, a rubber toy hamburger is also an iconic representation of a real hamburger.

In this article, the authors worked with 5 border collies. Three of the collies knew the names of a variety of objects, and two of the collies had no experience with names. Each collie was presented with either a small rubber toy that looked identical to a larger one that was hidden in another room among a variety of other toys, or was shown a photograph of a toy.

After being shown either the small toy or a photograph, the dogs were asked to go and fetch the large toy.

All of the dogs did remarkably well at retrieving the larger toy when shown the small toy, even though there were other toys in the adjacent room. Also, at least some of the dogs could generalize from looking at a photograph of a toy and go into the next room and bring back the toy that was shown in the photograph.

(How do they know this wasn't coincidental? Was this experiment replicated?)

While it is not particularly surprising that the dogs were able to look at a small toy and bring back an identical larger toy, it is surprising that the dogs could generalize from a two-dimensional photograph to a three-dimensional object. This suggests that dogs can form mental concepts from the information that we give them.

Another study suggesting that dogs can form mental concepts was reported in 2007 in the journal Animal Cognition (Adachi, I. et al. 2007. Dogs recall their owner’s face from hearing their owner’s voice. Animal Cognition 10: 17-21).

In that study, the authors used a variety of different dogs to see if the dogs could form a mental concept of their owner from the sound of the owner’s voice. They first played the sound of the owner’s voice to the dog, and then projected either the owner’s face or the face of a stranger on a nearby LCD screen. Using video cameras, the authors measured the length of time that the dogs spent looking at the screen when they saw their owner vs. when they saw the face of a stranger.

The dogs spent less time looking at the face of their owner after hearing their owner’s voice. When they saw the face of a stranger after hearing their owner’s voice, the dogs spent more time looking at the screen.

This suggests that upon hearing the voice of their owner, the dogs formed a mental concept of their owner and expected to see him or her, but were puzzled or confused when they saw the face of someone else. They spent more time looking to figure out why there was a mismatch between what they heard and what they saw.

This is the funniest interpretation yet. Goes to show what lengths a person will go to support his hypothesis.

Dogs can learn to recognize smiles, study finds

The dogs may have very well discriminated between a smiling face and a blank face because teeth are how dogs identify aggression so they may be sensitive to teeth in general, but to then conclude that they only recognized smiling faces that were the same gender as their owner makes no sense. But where are the replicated studies? LadyShea, none of these experiments prove that dogs can recognize their owners from a picture or screen.

A Dog's Growl Announces Its Size - ScienceNOW

This experiment also is unrelated to the discussion because it is not about recognizing faces.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What experiments are you talking about that proved efferent vision wrong? And what proven technologies disprove efferent vision?

You really are a lying sack of shit. Either that, or you are too goddamned dumb to remember something posted to you more than five minutes earlier.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What experiments are you talking about that proved efferent vision wrong? And what proven technologies disprove efferent vision? You never answered this. The optic nerve does not have to be the mechanism that allows the eyes to see efferently.

Hey, asshat,

DID YOU SOMEHOW OVERLOOK THIS?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Verification does not make a discovery valid. That is total BS. But...verification allows new knowledge to be applied for the betterment of mankind.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Agreed, verification does not make a discovery valid, but at least it has a chance at it. But if there is no verification then you definitively can't say you have a discovery.

According to Lessans, he did verify this knowledge, but if no one can see it then more testing has to take place. He even writes:

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?
Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying an
invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which
inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophesy to be made
thousands of years ago and verified in the 20th century? Would you
like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with
religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded
with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil?

If you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a
new way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

You don't have verification of any kind and yet you insist that it is a discovery.

You realize that by claiming a discovery with no verification, this doesn't help your case at all. It rather makes you and Lessan's look like charlatans. You would have more credibility if you called it a conjecture and let verification from others turn it into a discovery. You can claim the idea for Lessan's and it will in no way diminish it.

If I said this is just a conjecture which it isn't, people would lose interest. It would diminish its significance.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to Lessans, he did verify this knowledge, but if no one can see it then more testing has to take place. He even writes:

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?
Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying an
invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which
inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophesy to be made
thousands of years ago and verified in the 20th century? Would you
like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with
religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded
with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil?

If you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a
new way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late.

I'm sorry, did I miss something here? I do not see any verification of anything here. Just a pile of questions and an invitation to understand some equations and an invitation to go on a journey.

I see no verification.

Please tell me that you do not think that asking a question or an invitation to embark on a journey is the same as verifying a claim.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I said this is just a conjecture which it isn't, people would lose interest. It would diminish its significance.

Well this approach may fool the foolish, but I fail to see how it could in any way honor your father.

Certainly you understand that verification is needed, but that for the greatest effect it should come from a third party with nothing to gain. The more the better.

And if you are being completely open minded on all this, as you expect others to be, then you should be open to all findings that show Lessan's ideas to be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sorry, did I miss something here. I do not see any verification of anything here. Just a pile of questions and an invitation to understand some equations and an invitation to go on a journey.

I see no verification.

Please tell me that you do not think that asking a question or an invitation to embark on a journey is the same as verifying a claim.

Of course not. I posted this because he knew that understanding was necessary for recognition and development, and he also knew what a mathematical relation was. I didn't mean that this was the actual verification.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well this approach may fool the foolish, but I fail to see how it could in any way honor your father.

Certainly you understand that verification is needed, but that for the greatest effect it should come from a third party with nothing to gain. The more the better.

I would love a third party to verify this knowledge. But it's so outside of the box (so to speak) that the knee jerk response is one of anger and disbelief. From this point on there has been a growing effort to diminish this work and make it look like a mere assertion. I don't think that is at all objective.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And if you are being completely open minded on all this, as you expect others to be, then you should be open to all findings that show Lessan's ideas to be wrong.

I'm open to criticism. I wouldn't have stayed this long, but no one actually discredited Lessans' claims. If they think they did, they certainly didn't prove it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. I posted this because he knew that understanding was necessary for recognition and development, and he also knew what a mathematical relation was. I didn't mean that this was the actual verification.

peacegirl, I can understand how you might be rattled after running the gauntlet of this thread. But making such hasty posts that are sooo far off the mark is not helping your case.

Perhaps you just need to chill out for awhile. Let this thread die down, give yourself some time to think about all of this and perhaps adjust your position. Clarify your understanding and maybe do more homework. Perhaps before you returning to champion Lessan you wear the hat of a skeptic. It might help you to deal with the skeptics.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm open to criticism. I wouldn't have stayed this long, but no one actually discredited Lessans' claims. If they think they did, they certainly didn't prove it.

Then I don't think you've been paying attention.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would love a third party to verify this knowledge. But it's so outside of the box (so to speak) that the knee jerk response is one of anger and disbelief.

This is a typical a repeated meme of this fundamentally dishonest character. It is obvious that no one here is angry at these ridiculous claims. People are indignant at displays of rank hypocrisy, blatant dishonesty, and willful ignorance, all of which peacegirl has displayed in abundance in this thread. The Lone Ranger wrote her a goddamn 35-page essay, with illustrations, showing in detail our knowledge of light and sight down to the goddamn atomic level, and this dishonest little charlatan has the extraordinary gall to claim that no one has showed her the refutations of her father's pathetic nonsense! She has already admitted that she has not, and will not, read that essay. And, of course, the essay was far from the ONLY disproof of Lessans that has been offered, there have been literally dozens! The discovery of the discrpeancy in the moons of Jupiter that allowed a tentative measurement of the speed of light by itself conclusively disproves real-time seeing, and this demonstration was given to her hundreds of pages ago.

Nobody this fundamentaly dishonest deserves any respect, and any efforts to reason with a charlatan like this are useless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I can understand how you might be rattled after running the gauntlet of this thread. But making such hasty posts that are sooo far off the mark is not helping your case.

Perhaps you just need to chill out for awhile. Let this thread die down, give yourself some time to think about all of this and perhaps adjust your position. Clarify your understanding and maybe do more homework. Perhaps before you returning to champion Lessan you wear the hat of a skeptic. It might help you to deal with the skeptics.

Natural.atheist, what hasty posts are you talking about? People are going to attack me no matter what I say, so chilling out won't do anything in my opinion. As far as wearing the hat of a skeptic, my father taught me from the time I was very young to be skeptical. He always said to take everything with a grain of salt, which I do to this day. It's ingrained in me. I am not sure what you mean by "clarify my understanding and do more homework." I don't need to do more homework to know what I know is true. When you say "adjust my position" what do you mean? Do you mean reject the discovery, or question it's validity? I'm sure that would make the skeptics happy. I really don't mind letting this thread die. It's exhausting; it's gotten nowhere; and I don't like being called names just because I believe Lessans was correct in his analysis. I can now see why there are religious wars.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is a typical a repeated meme of this fundamentally dishonest character. It is obvious that no one here is angry at these ridiculous claims. People are indignant at displays of rank hypocrisy, blatant dishonesty, and willful ignorance, all of which peacegirl has displayed in abundance in this thread. The Lone Ranger wrote her a goddamn 35-page essay, with illustrations, showing in detail our knowledge of light and sight down to the goddamn atomic level, and this dishonest little charlatan has the extraordinary gall to claim that no one has showed her the refutations of her father's pathetic nonsense! She has already admitted that she has not, and will not, read that essay. And, of course, the essay was far from the ONLY disproof of Lessans that has been offered, there have been literally dozens! The discovery of the discrpeancy in the moons of Jupiter that allowed a tentative measurement of the speed of light by itself conclusively disproves real-time seeing, and this demonstration was given to her hundreds of pages ago.

Nobody this fundamentaly dishonest deserves any respect, and any efforts to reason with a charlatan like this are useless.

I'm really not sure if I'm on 'ignore' or 'pretend ignore' but here it is again anyhow. I've been trying to say something like this for a long time.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Natural.atheist, what hasty posts are you talking about? People are going to attack me no matter what I say, so chilling out won't do anything in my opinion. As far as wearing the hat of a skeptic, my father taught me from the time I was very young to be skeptical. He always said to take everything with a grain of salt, which I do to this day. It's ingrained in me. I am not sure what you mean by "clarify my understanding and do more homework." I don't need to do more homework to know what I know is true. When you say "adjust my position" what do you mean? Do you mean reject the discovery, or question it's validity? I'm sure that would make the skeptics happy. I really don't mind letting this thread die. It's exhausting; it's gotten nowhere; and I don't like being called names just because I believe Lessans was correct in his analysis. I can now see why there are religious wars.

As an example, you understand that you have no validation. You understand that you can't call something a discovery if it hasn't been validated. You have said that you call it a discovery because you think people will not take it seriously if you call it a conjecture.

Under these circumstances certainly you should fully expect that skeptical people will reject your "discovery". They will probably go further and question your integrity, and after 10,000 posts, you could not blame them at all for thinking that you are a dishonest, howl at the moon lunatic.

A skeptic would know this.

Why don't you know this if you are trained as a skeptic?

Sorry peacegirl, but you don't add up.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sorry, did I miss something here? I do not see any verification of anything here. Just a pile of questions and an invitation to understand some equations and an invitation to go on a journey.

Verification isn't the only thing missing. There aren't any equations either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Then I don't think you've been paying attention.

I have been paying attention. There have been a lot of attempts but none are conclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As an example, you understand that you have no validation. You understand that you can't call something a discovery if it hasn't been validated. You have said that you call it a discovery because you think people will not take it seriously if you call it a conjecture.

Under these circumstances certainly you should fully expect that skeptical people will reject your "discovery". They will probably go further and question your integrity, and after 10,000 posts, you could not blame them at all for thinking that you are a dishonest, howl at the moon lunatic.

A skeptic would know this.

Why don't you know this if you are trained as a skeptic?

Sorry peacegirl, but you don't add up.

I don't add up because you have not read the book. I think you only read the first chapter, correct? Why do you think I put this book online. I could have marketed it for money, but I didn't feel that was the way to go. I wanted people to have access to it. Now you have to buy the book because I cannot risk the butchering that David and Stephen, the editor, and others have caused. It hurt me deeply because they took out of context what this book represents. Not only that, these people have no idea how this man came to his conclusions, yet they are so quick to condemn him. It's no longer possible to give this book online since it is so misconstrued. I really wanted to give this book out for free but it's not working. I don't think this discussion can go any further without access to the book, so it will end very soon.

Whether you agree or not, this is a discovery; his explanation as to why we have no free will; why our conscience functions in a very specific way which is why responsibility goes up, not down, in a world of no blame, is spot on [most philosophers believe responsibility would go down because they never extended the knowledge of "no free will" fully]. Further, the conclusions he drew can be verified by empirical testing. I really don't care if people question my integrity. If they don't know me by now, then they'll never know me, so they can think what they want. It doesn't change my sincerity or who I am as a person; it just tells me how difficult it will be to bring this knowledge to light if this group represents the majority.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Verification isn't the only thing missing. There aren't any equations either.

There is definitely a two-sided equation, which is the core of the discovery. You are stuck on the idea of an equation consisting of numbers, and that's why you can't see it, or you don't want to see it; or maybe you just want to find flaws because it gives you greater satisfaction to be right rather than wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Under these circumstances certainly you should fully expect that skeptical people will reject your "discovery". They will probably go further and question your integrity, and after 10,000 posts, you could not blame them at all for thinking that you are a dishonest, howl at the moon lunatic.

A skeptic would know this.

Why don't you know this if you are trained as a skeptic?

Sorry peacegirl, but you don't add up.

Finally getting the picture, eh, N.A.?

Wow, I thought you were going to be nice to her, unlike us big bunch of nasties. A howl at the moon lunatic? I like that. Fits her to a T. Better be careful, though, pretty soon you'll be on "Pretend Ignore," too.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't add up because you have not read the book. I think you only read the first chapter, correct? Why do you think I put this book online.

To try to sell it to gullible idiots.

I could have marketed it for money, but I didn't feel that was the way to go.

You were selling it for $39.95 a pop at Amazon or one of those places. What kind of lies are you telling now?

... I cannot risk the butchering that David and Stephen ...

All right, Maturin, she actually mentions you this time, but notice she puts you after me.

It hurt me deeply because they took out of context what this book represents.

No, we did not.

Not only that, these people have no idea how this man came to his conclusions...

Of course we have no idea how he came to his conclusions. Because, unlike your repeated lies, we did read the book, and discovered that he does not say how he arrived at his conclusions.

I don't think this discussion can go any further without access to the book, so it will end very soon.

Oh, look! She's "Pretend Leaving" again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a weak experiment. They even said they don't know if the dog actually recognized the object as a dog. This does not prove anything whatsoever.

When the dogs were faced with a choice between the new dog on the familiar landscape and a completely new landscape with no dog, they reliably selected the option with the dog. These results show that the dogs were able to form a concept i.e. ‘dog’, although the experiment cannot tell us whether they recognized the dog pictures as actual dogs.

They differentiated between dogs and landscapes. That tells us they are seeing differences in photographs. That's a bit of info to add to the body of knowledge

Dog Behavior Blog: Dogs Can Understand Photographs

And you call this conclusive evidence that a dog can recognize his master from a picture?

Nope, I call it just evidence that they can recognize photographs.

While it is not particularly surprising that the dogs were able to look at a small toy and bring back an identical larger toy, it is surprising that the dogs could generalize from a two-dimensional photograph to a three-dimensional object. This suggests that dogs can form mental concepts from the information that we give them.


This suggests that upon hearing the voice of their owner, the dogs formed a mental concept of their owner and expected to see him or her, but were puzzled or confused when they saw the face of someone else. They spent more time looking to figure out why there was a mismatch between what they heard and what they saw.

This is the funniest interpretation yet. Goes to show what lengths a person will go to support his hypothesis.

Says the person who thinks we need to recalculate the speed of light to fit her conclusions.

This experiment also is unrelated to the discussion because it is not about recognizing faces.

They associated photographs with a sound indicating they have visual models of their world, and so can recognize things by sight.

I picked 5 studies from the first page of a Google search. I don't think any of them are conclusive, merely indicative of the larger body of knowledge available. That you even expect "proof" from a few web links posted by a layperson is very telling of your mindset.

I am pretty sure that if one intensely researched the issue (which requires access to peer reviewed scientific journals and a thorough understanding of scientific methodology and lots of time) one might reach a well supported conclusion of some kind.

I have not intensely researched the issue, but that in 30 seconds with Google I can find multiple studies indicating dogs can recognize photographs, facial expressions (which would show that facial features are also recognized) and differentiate between landscapes, I lean towards thinking that dogs can, in fact, recognize their masters faces. I additionally believe that further study would lead me to conclude that.

You were brought up distrusting - even disrespecting- the scientific process in favor of your own uncontrolled, undocumented "observations", so I doubt you can ever objectively look at anything that might cast doubt on Lessans claims of absolute truthiness. This post proves it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a weak experiment. They even said they don't know if the dog actually recognized the object as a dog. This does not prove anything whatsoever.

When the dogs were faced with a choice between the new dog on the familiar landscape and a completely new landscape with no dog, they reliably selected the option with the dog. These results show that the dogs were able to form a concept i.e. ‘dog’, although the experiment cannot tell us whether they recognized the dog pictures as actual dogs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They differentiated between dogs and landscapes. That tells us they are seeing differences in photographs. That's a bit of info to add to the body of knowledge

They might have seen a difference in objects efferently. They did not have to recognize a face. That would indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain, but this has not been proven.

Dog Behavior Blog: Dogs Can Understand Photographs

And you call this conclusive evidence that a dog can recognize his master from a picture?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, I call it just evidence that they can recognize photographs.

It could be true that they recognize a spot in a picture when they are given rewards, but even here it's very sketchy. That's my opinion, ok? Where are these experiments replicated. Why do they just give one experiment and no more? I am not talking about different types of experiments. I am talking about replication of the same exact experiment so that it can be verified.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

While it is not particularly surprising that the dogs were able to look at a small toy and bring back an identical larger toy, it is surprising that the dogs could generalize from a two-dimensional photograph to a three-dimensional object. This suggests that dogs can form mental concepts from the information that we give them.


This suggests that upon hearing the voice of their owner, the dogs formed a mental concept of their owner and expected to see him or her, but were puzzled or confused when they saw the face of someone else. They spent more time looking to figure out why there was a mismatch between what they heard and what they saw.

This is the funniest interpretation yet. Goes to show what lengths a person will go to support his hypothesis.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Says the person who thinks we need to recalculate the speed of light to fit her conclusions.

You show me where I recalculated the speed of light and I'll eat my words. I've said this before and I'll willing to retract something I said that was incorrect. What I remember saying is that the testing has more to do with the brain than the properties of light. Why are you trying to defame Lessans? Obviously, it's to protect your worldview.

This experiment also is unrelated to the discussion because it is not about recognizing faces.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They associated photographs with a sound indicating they have visual models of their world, and so can recognize things by sight.

This is so far fetched it's laughable, but because it's "empirical" you give more credence to this than a dog hearing a voice and being unable to see his owner right in front of him. That should be an experiment in and of itself to prove that those who believe in scientific experiments are not being as objective as they think.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I picked 5 studies from the first page of a Google search. I don't think any of them are conclusive, merely indicative of the larger body of knowledge available. That you even expect "proof" from a few web links posted by a layperson is very telling of your mindset.

You keep putting me down, but you are the one that offered these experiments and now you're trying to save face. Let it go LadyShea. You're not going to win.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pretty sure that if one intensely researched the issue (which requires access to peer reviewed scientific journals and a thorough understanding of scientific methodology and lots of time) one might reach a well supported conclusion of some kind.

Hello? And you don't think this is conjecture on your part; no different than what people are accusing Lessans of? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have not intensely researched the issue, but that in 30 seconds with Google I can find multiple studies indicating dogs can recognize photographs, facial expressions (which would show that facial features are also recognized) and differentiate between landscapes, I lean towards thinking that dogs can, in fact, recognize their masters faces. I additionally believe that further study would lead me to conclude that.

Continue with your conjectures. It has no bearing on this discussion or on these claims.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were brought up distrusting - even disrespecting- the scientific process in favor of your own uncontrolled, undocumented "observations", so I doubt you can ever objectively look at anything that might cast doubt on Lessans claims of absolute truthiness. This post proves it.

This post proves absolutely nada. Not a thing in these experiments proved Lessans wrong. You are trying what you believe to be the only methodology that can prove something is true. As far as this discovery goes, it does not hold weight, and I've said this numerous times. There are other ways to observe a truth. If you would be honest with yourself, you would at least acknowledge that a dog that hears his master but leaves the room to go searching for him is an interesting observation. But no, you would rather trust these experiments that are not replicated at all. You are blind in this respect because of your total allegiance to empirical testing, which is not always right, and you will go to any lengths to protect what is clearly inaccurate.

[davidm]

While peacegirl continues to spout her meaningless bafflegab, just a quick note: I was reading a review today in The New York Times about a new book called "Six-Legged Sex," about insects. According to the review, the book states that Some insects can recognize individual human beings.

Oh, but the great Stupido Seymour (Seventh Grade Dropout) Lessans claims that dogs -- dogs! -- can't recognize individual humans, not even their masters!

Anyway, the insect claim is fascinating; maybe The Lone Ranger has some info on it. I haven't read the reviewed book, so I only pass along the note in the review of it.

[LadyShea]

You are trying what you believe to be the only methodology that can prove something is true. As far as this discovery goes, it does not hold weight, and I've said this numerous times. There are other ways to observe a truth.

When I have evidence on one hand and some random dude's assertions based on his own personal observations on the other, I pay more attention to the evidence. This is not dogmaticism or worldview protection, this is common sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When I have evidence on one hand and some random dude's assertions based on his own personal observations on the other, I pay more attention to the evidence. This is not dogmaticism or worldview protection, this is common sense.

What you call evidence is embarrassingly devoid of true facts. Throwing together an experiment (if you can call it that) that trains dogs to do an action for a reward does not translate to true recognition. It's amazing to me that you think that an unreliable experiment that hasn't even been replicated is better than astute observation that has been observed over and over again. And you don't think the conclusions are slanted in order to confirm what the experimenter wants to be true? The irony meter has once again exploded but not because of me.