From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Martin's challenge (was Re: animals in research)
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 02:39:56 GMT

PLEASE NOTE: The attributions here are getting ridiculous, as is the length.
		Given this, I'm going to cut major portions of quoted text....
		....and at that, it will be long.

		I hope I can do this without destroying context, but if I'm
		not entirely successful, I want to make it clear that it's
		not intentional.

In <1992Dec18.220220.12376@clpd.kodak.com>, Bob Black writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec12.185729.23128@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>
>>Bob Black previously wrote:

[...]

>>>But these examples fail due to our lack of sufficient information and
>>>based on assumptions about foreknowledge (that is, we're assuming that
>>>the deaths were not anticipated or expected by those who died).  
>> 
>> 	And that's the whole point: the two examples offered do not refute
>> 	Martin's challenge.  The reasons for this failure are irrelevant to
>> 	the point.
>
>Actually the reasons do seem relevant.  If the examples have been
>disproved, then further inquiry would be discouraged.  If the examples
>have been dismissed due to insufficient information, then further
>exploration may be merited.  However with the clarifications at the
>bottom ("SUM of the actions of ALL members..."), Martin's challenge is
>increasingly starting to look tautologically useless.  His claim now
>appears to take a form like: If John Doe sacrifices himself, then he
>won't survive. 

	You said it yourself: without foreknowledge of motives, the examples
	cannot be shown to refute Martin's challenge.  There WAS no further
	exploration, therefore speculation regarding the results of further
	exploration is just that: speculation...and speculation does not
	refute the challenge.  The fact remains that the two examples, as
	presented, were inadequate to refute Martin's statement.  I can
	speculate about what I might have done had I won the lottery, but
	it will bring me no closer to actually winning it.

	As for the utility of his statement, it is, in fact, a statement
	of a very simple principle...though not the one you've supplied
	in your example.  A better reading would be: sacrifice is maladaptive
	and, if carried to extremes, will result in extinction, which is
	why it's not seen in existing species.  [I'm paraphrasing Martin,
	here, and will welcome any corrections he might offer.]

[...]

>What's relevant is that there are many examples of dogs
>appearing to show favoritism toward other taxonomic classes at the
>expense of their own.  How many such examples are needed to cast doubt
>on the allegation that dogs are speciesist? Or is it the claim that we
>can never draw a conclusion in this matter by reviewing the actions of
>individuals?

	You assume that the viewpoint of the dog is irrelevant.  In point
	of fact, the viewpoint of the dog is the ONLY relevant consideration.
	If the actions of a dog are seen BY THE DOG to further the species,
	then there is clearly speciesism because the dog is acting to
	benefit his species.  Whether or not it actually IS his species
	which is benefitted, is totally without significance.  It's the
	motivation, not the action itself, which is the determining factor.

	Once again, I must urge caution regarding the use of the domestic dog
	as an example, since it has been evolutionarily "corrupted" by human
	design.

[...]

>You're still overlooking the significance of the meaning of the term
>"species." If a dog thinks a non-dog is actually a dog, that doesn't
>magically shift the non-dog into a different taxonomic class.  The dog's
>"point of view" is irrelevant. 
>
>When dogs use criteria other than the specific taxonomic classification
>of species, then they're not acting as speciesists.

	See above.  In addition, it's becoming clear that you've corrupted
	Martin's original meaning.  He wasn't trying to explore the ability
	of a domesticated animal to identify others of its kind, he was
	addressing the point that members of a species tend to act in ways
	that preserve their species, regardless of the consequences to other
	species.  [Again, if this is a misreading of Martin's intent, I will
	welcome his correction.]  In the case of the dog, a mistake in
	taxonomy from a "Man-made" creature bred to make just such a mistake
	is hardly a rebuttal of the principle.

[...]

>How prevalent do these apparently contradictory individual examples have
>to be in order cast reasonable doubt on the speciesist hypothesis?

	I'm not at all certain that a "Man-made" animal would ever really
	provide definitive evidence.

[...]

>Whether the dog is confused or not doesn't matter.  The speciesist claim
>rises or falls on the question of whether the dog is prejudicing his
>behavior on the basis of species membership.  The dog may "think" he's
>acting in a speciesist way by favoring humans, but this is a wrong
>conclusion.  In actual fact, he is not acting in a speciesist way.

	See above.

[...]

>>>Then I would have to conclude that the dog is incapable of being a
>>>speciesist.
>> 
>> 	From what point of view?  ...
>
>Huh? From the point of view that accepts the standard definition of
>species, of course.  The term "species" does not have arbitrary meaning
>that differs from individual to individual.  Remember, species refers
>to a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking after a
>genus and consisting of organisms capable of interbreeding. 

	See above.

[...]

>Consistency is not relevant here.  What the dog perceives is not
>relevant.  [...]
>
>The dog may "perceive" himself to be acting as a speciesist, but he's
>wrong.

	Not from his standpoint.  See above.

>>>How do you draw conclusions about a "species" without studying
>>>individual members of that species?
>> 
>> 	Obviously one cannot.  The trap into which you have fallen, however,
>> 	is in the belief that the actions of one individual represent every
>> 	member of the species.  This is the same trap set for us by anecdotal
>> 	evidence, case histories, and poorly-done epidemiology.  It is the
>> 	SUM of the actions of ALL members of a species which is speciesist,
>> 	not necessarily the single action of one member in a specific set
>> 	of circumstances.  Martin made no reference to individual animals;
>> 	he specifically said "species," which is an inclusive term that
>> 	excludes specific individual actions.
>
>There are two conflicting possible interpretations of this paragraph:
>
>(1) By using the analogy of case histories etc., then it appears you're
>claiming that a conclusion about speciesism can be made by examining a
>sufficient number of appropriately selected individuals and then
>generalizing the observations.

	Your supposition regarding my intent is in error.  My use of the
	"case histories" analogy was intended to make the point that one
	observation is not sufficient evidence from which to draw conclusions
	about an entire species.  If you observe that I am Caucasian, does
	that "prove" that ALL humans are Caucasian?  If you observe all
	members of my family, both immediate and extended, to be Caucasian,
	does that prove that ALL humans are Caucasian?  No.  All it proves
	is that my family is Caucasian.

>(2) Yet the last sentence in your
>paragraph suggests that there's a synergistic factor at work which
>rules out a simple summation of specific individual actions. 

	Again, you misinterpret.  I said "specific individual actions," not,
	"[summation of] specific individual actions."  The difference needs
	no explanation, I trust.

>If (1), then keep in mind that I haven't been referring to the behavior
>of a single canine individual.  It's been my observation that dogs in
>general frequently give preference to non-canines over canines.

	So what?  They've been bred for millenia to do precisely that.
	Whatever concept of "species" the domestic dog holds, has been
	artificially expanded to include Man.  A dog welcoming his master
	behaves exactly like a subordinate pack member greeting the alpha
	male in wolf society.

[...]

>If (2), then the claim seems to treat "species" itself as an entity and
>becomes trivially useless, since it has the form: X exists now, so X must
>have been taking actions that would lead to its own survival.

	Flawed.  It has the form: there is no existing X that would sacrifice
	itself for Y.  Until something like Al Capp's "schmoo" is seen in
	the real world, this will continue to be true; sacrifice is maladap-
	tive from an evolutionary standpoint.  As I said above it is, indeed,
	a simple principle, but simple does not mean trivial.

>> It does not matter what this dog does in this situation; what matters
>> is whether dogs, in general, do things which tend to sustain their
>> species, ...
>
>Obviously they do, as evidenced by their survival up to this point.

	This isn't all that obvious.  The domestic dog, as we know it, would
	most likely die out were it not for Man's constant attention.  As time
	passed, the domestic dog would most likely revert to its pre-domestic
	form, or something very like it, since natural selection would weed
	out the more bizarre forms.  Of course, it would no longer be a 
	"domestic dog" at that point.

>Does this by itelf mean they are speciesist?  Is this the trivial point Martin 
>was making?

	Perhaps I should have said, "...which, IN SUM, tend to sustain their
	species."  And yes, I believe that was the point Martin was trying
	to make, although it's hardly trivial in the context of the discussion
	in which it first appeared.

>Actually Martin made two claims, which are starting to blur together:
>
>ry> Martin Hulsey wrote (or at least I _think_ he did...I deleted too much):
> 
>    All animals are speciesist
>    Humans are animals, therefore,
>    Humans are speciesist.
> 
>and
>
>mh> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
>mh> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save
>mh> members of another species.
>
>Note that in the first claim ("All animals are speciesist"), Martin
>seems to be referring to individuals.  [...]

	THAT is a real stretch.  The use of the word "humans" in the remainder
	of the statement clearly refers to "members" of a species, not any
	individual representative.  Although it's not precisely stated, the
	meaning is clear...and it's not the way you've interpreted it.

>The second claim is now looking more ambiguous.  Is Martin referring to
>a straight sum of individual behaviors or to a synergistic sum which
>could never be determined by examining individual behaviors?  Is he
>simply saying: Those who don't kill themselves stay alive longer?

	I hesitate to speak for Martin, and encourage his correction, but I
	don't see anything which would defeat proper epidemiology in his
	statement.  However, he is not [as I see it] saying something as
	totally inane as what you've proposed.  He is saying that a species
	cannot survive if it places other species survival ahead of its own.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals