Stories of clever animals abound, from pigs playing video games to monkeys trading mobile phones – now tests reveal that they don't merely act on instinct but can think flexibly, like us
Honestly Humanity has been pretty arrogant. Took 100s of years before we recognised birds use tools. Mainly because everytime it was seen. Some other excuse was seen for why the bird was sticking a stick into a tree. Science was so sure mankind was unique it was unwilling to see reality.
But honestly if you think that is bad. Do some research into why European explorers thought Europe represented the most advanced civilisation. African cities raised to the ground rather then face the idea they may have been their before us.
Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.
Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.
But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.
I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.
In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old wives nuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.
Honestly Humanity has been pretty arrogant. Took 100s of years before we recognised birds use tools. Mainly because everytime it was seen. Some other excuse was seen for why the bird was sticking a stick into a tree. Science was so sure mankind was unique it was unwilling to see reality.
But honestly if you think that is bad. Do some research into why European explorers thought Europe represented the most advanced civilisation. African cities raised to the ground rather then face the idea they may have been their before us.
Razed*
There*
Than*
That was mainly religions influence. Observations that did not conform with what they “knew” from the bible had to have another explanation.
I sorta agree.
Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.
Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.
But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.
I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.
In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old
wivesnuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.