Yesterday I responded to ID critic and computer scientist Jeffrey Shallit, asking “Can Animals Be Taught Concepts?” In his comments section, Dr. Shallit has some more questions regarding my observation that animals are incapable of abstract thought.

Shallit:

How about designing an experiment which could test your claim? Tell me how we could determine whether animals reason abstractly or not. Then tell me why the experiments that have already been carried out don’t rate.

The fundamental problem with experiments on animal abstraction is that all of the results supposedly showing it involve intense training of the animal, so that learned non-abstract behavior becomes difficult to distinguish from actual abstract thinking. You can teach a parrot to recite a passage from Newton’s Principia — that doesn’t mean the parrot understands Newtonian physics.

An experiment that would demonstrate animal abstraction would be a demonstration that animals think abstractly without training by experimenters. Such abstract thinking means that the animal cogitates concepts independently of particulars.

An example would be an animal that showed a natural understanding of mathematics independently of physical objects, such as an animal who showed an understanding of the concept of imaginary numbers. Of course to propose the experiment by which an ape is observed for evidence that he comprehends the square root of negative one is to describe in advance the outcome. It’s not even apparent how animals could think of abstract concepts. Animals are incapable of abstract language in any human sense — how exactly would an animal think about abstract ideas such as imaginary numbers without words for concepts?

The evidence for genuine abstract thought in animals — behavior that is not trained and is independent of particulars — is zero.

Shallit:

As for “instantiate a universal,” I think you presume I belong to some philosophical school where this makes sense. I don’t even believe in universals, at least as conceived of by some philosophers. I’m not a Platonist or Aristotelian, for example, nor am I a realist. Give me a specific example of something you want that cannot be possible under materialism, not vague prattle.

Examples of universals: “philosophical school,” “universals,” “Platonist,” “example,” “Aristotelian,” “realist,” “specific,” “something,” “materialism,” “vague prattle.” Shallit’s denial of universals is full of universals.

Universals exist. There is genuine debate as to whether they exist in a separate realm (Plato), in particulars (Aristotle), or only in the mind with no independent existence per se (Ockham). But in order to debate universals one must invoke universals, whatever they are.

And whatever universals are (I agree with Aristotle), it is men, and not animals, who contemplate them.

Image: Newton’s first edition copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, � Andrew Dunn via Wikicommons.