Jane Goodall Ambushed on Animal Planet

aggle-rithm

Ardent Formulist
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
15,334
Location
Austin, TX
I haven't been able to find a thread on this, so I'm starting my own.

Last night I watched Animal Planet's "Jane Goodall's When Animals Talk". I was dreading it, for the promos seemed to indicate that it was going to involve more than a little woo-woo nonsense about telepathic animals. Sure enough, my worst fears were realized.

I have a feeling that if Jane Goodall realized what kind of program she was participating in, she would never have agreed to it. It was a two hour program, with regularly interspersed interviews and appearences with Jane Goodall, but much of it was clearly produced and narrated without her input.

My wife and I watched one section where Jane visited an African grey parrot who had an extraordinary vocabulary, and apparently used sentences that demonstrated a fairly sophisticated internal model of the world. She observed with interest, but didn't attempt to come to any conclusions.

The sequence was introduced with a brief fragment of an interview in which Jane Goodall said, "We were told about a parrot who can read minds." I imagine the next thing out of her mouth would have been, "I doubt if he can really read minds, of course, but it sounds interesting." Of course, we weren't treated to that. Instead, the program cut to a more credulous "scientist" who designed an experiment to see if the parrot could identify pictures that her owner was looking at in another room. A split screen was used to show that the parrot was describing exactly what the owner was looking at at the exact same moment!

My wife was convinced that something miraculous was going on, until I pointed out to her how easily the tape could have been edited to look much more impressive than it was.

What really ticked me off about the whole thing was that this appeared to be something of genuine scientific interest. If (and this is a big if) a parrot could really apply abstract reasoning, think about the future, and demonstrate flexibility in language, then perhaps we should rethink the cognitive abilities of animals. WHY, oh why, bring telepathic hocus-pocus into it?!? Isn't the fact that this bird with a tiny brain has a vocabulary of over a thousand words fascinating enough without trying to posit magical powers?

Sheeesh....
 
The networks are - as always - simply catering to the viewing audience...
 
jmercer said:
The networks are - as always - simply catering to the viewing audience...

I think that should be changed a bit, to say "what they think their viewing audience is.."

Penn made this point at TAM3, that the producers of some shows are just projecting their own biases, instead of really seeing what the audience wants.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Isn't the fact that this bird with a tiny brain has a vocabulary of over a thousand words fascinating enough without trying to posit magical powers?

Sheeesh....

I know some humans with vocabularies less developed....
 
Slightly more relevant here than the thread where I originally posted it:

[Derail] I remember when I was little (about 15~20 years ago, don't remember how old I was), I heard about a parrot that seemed to speak intelligently. Featured a videoclip of the parrot playing a few games where he pointed out the difference between groups of objects. When I later read a magazine article on the topic, it mentioned the parrot becoming bitter and uncooperative when being tested by scientists other than the one talking about his abilities.

I wonder if the parrot was just a "Clever Hans" who got frustrated when he wasn't receiving the usual unconscious cues. Anyone know more about this? [/Derail]
 
IllegalArgument said:
I think that should be changed a bit, to say "what they think their viewing audience is.."

Penn made this point at TAM3, that the producers of some shows are just projecting their own biases, instead of really seeing what the audience wants.

Hm... yes. Thanks. :)
 
jmercer said:
The networks are - as always - simply catering to the viewing audience...

I know, and I usually just steer clear of this type of program. In this case, though, I was curious as to what Jane Goodall had to say about the unusual claims that animals had magical powers. (as it turned out, she really didn't comment on it much, at least not on camera.) What really irked me was the exploitation of a world-renouned scientist to in an attempt to add credibility to their nonsense.

I confess, I didn't watch the whole thing -- just enough to upset my stomach.
 
BronzeDog said:
Slightly more relevant here than the thread where I originally posted it:

[Derail] I remember when I was little (about 15~20 years ago, don't remember how old I was), I heard about a parrot that seemed to speak intelligently. Featured a videoclip of the parrot playing a few games where he pointed out the difference between groups of objects. When I later read a magazine article on the topic, it mentioned the parrot becoming bitter and uncooperative when being tested by scientists other than the one talking about his abilities.

I wonder if the parrot was just a "Clever Hans" who got frustrated when he wasn't receiving the usual unconscious cues. Anyone know more about this? [/Derail]

Interesting.... I imagine the parrot in the Goodall program was getting very, very conscious cues, off camera of course.

When my wife threatened to buy into this presentation, I told her this was clearly just an informal experiment. To be of any interest, it would have to be replicated independently. (Somehow I doubt the "scientist" involved will publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.)
 
Re: Re: Jane Goodall Ambushed on Animal Planet

Deetee said:
I know some humans with vocabularies less developed....

I was going to subsitute "co-workers" with humans.:p
 
Re: Re: Jane Goodall Ambushed on Animal Planet

Deetee said:
I know some humans with vocabularies less developed....

yeah, same here.
But I'll bet that they actually know (or think they know) the meanings of all of them.
The critter has no clue, in most cases. (I except phrases and words on the lines of "are you hungry" and "Want a bath?" from the cluelessness. Most critters understand the results of those, anyway...):D
 
IllegalArgument said:
I think that should be changed a bit, to say "what they think their viewing audience is.."

Penn made this point at TAM3, that the producers of some shows are just projecting their own biases, instead of really seeing what the audience wants.
Folks who produce stuff like this also feel that they have to have an "angle." The conclusion "It looks pretty interesting but there's really nothing mysterious about it" is not generally deemed to be a good or interesting angle.

A more preferred angle is, "Wow, look at this! Is it a supernatural phenomenon? Could be!" This is the angle that is more likely to appeal to sponsors, who think people are more likely to tune in for a "gee whiz" show than for a show that educates.

We've seen this sort of thing before. Which is more likely to draw viewers: a report that demonstrates that "John of God" is a despicable con man preying on the gullibility of sick people, or a "report" that suggests "Gee whiz, maybe--just maybe!--John of God actually channels miraculous healing powers from the Almighty!" ABC "News" decided that the latter angle was the one to pursue (and thereby almost certainly increased the number of suckers who gave their money to this despicable con man).
 
Parrots

Ever heard the story of the peach-face parrot that, when there was a fire in the house, flew to its owner's bedroom and knocked on the door until they woke up?
 
anyone ever heard the story of the kangaroo that robbed a bank and got away by hiding its ill-gotten booty in its pouch?
 
This and worse claptrap is everywhere. What shocks me is that even outlets like the History Channel and TLC are airing obscenely credulous programs about everything from Nostradamus to ( I am not making this up) references to extraterrestrials in the Bible. Every time I see Discovery or National Geographic jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon, I die a little inside. I guess this is what qualifies for educational programming today.
 
aggle-rithm said:
(Somehow I doubt the "scientist" involved will publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.)
In this case, your sketicism is not rewarded. Go here to see a list of peer-reviewed papers (~50 or more?). Also, go to the home page of that site for other interesting information.

Alex is quite a guy, no doubt, but there is no mention (that I found) on this site of paranormal crap. This is another case of valid scientific inquiry being twisted by the popular media.
 
SezMe said:
In this case, your sketicism is not rewarded. Go here to see a list of peer-reviewed papers (~50 or more?). Also, go to the home page of that site for other interesting information.

Alex is quite a guy, no doubt, but there is no mention (that I found) on this site of paranormal crap. This is another case of valid scientific inquiry being twisted by the popular media.

The "Acquisition Of Anomalous Communicatory Systems" paper seemed a little suspicious. But when I said I doubted he would be published, I was referring to the little "parrot ESP" experiment he performed in the show. Strictly informal, it seems.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Isn't the fact that this bird with a tiny brain has a vocabulary of over a thousand words fascinating enough without trying to posit magical powers?

[/B]

What do you mean fascinating enough?? If it has telepathic abilities we should just ignore it because having a 1000 word vocabulary is sufficiently fascinating in itself?? :rolleyes:

If the scientific evidence suggests that the bird has telepathic ability then that's something extremely interesting and definitely not something we should just ignore!
 
BronzeDog said:
I wonder if the parrot was just a "Clever Hans" who got frustrated when he wasn't receiving the usual unconscious cues. Anyone know more about this? [/Derail] [/B]

Why do skeptics think that human beings are unique. With their obsession with evolution you'd think that they would be more ready than anyone else to accept that we are not different in kind from other animals!

OK, we are vastly more intelligent than most, but it seems something like dolphins are pretty close to us in terms of intelligence. Why do materialists/skeptics have such difficulty in accepting this??
 
Interesting Ian said:
Why do skeptics think that human beings are unique. With their obsession with evolution you'd think that they would be more ready than anyone else to accept that we are not different in kind from other animals!

OK, we are vastly more intelligent than most, but it seems something like dolphins are pretty close to us in terms of intelligence. Why do materialists/skeptics have such difficulty in accepting this??
FALLACY: Straw Man. Read my post again, Ian.
 

Back
Top Bottom