Abstract

Debates in animal cognition are frequently polarized between the romantic view that some species have human-like causal understanding and the killjoy view that human causal reasoning is unique. These apparently endless debates are often characterized by conceptual confusions and accusations of straw-men positions. What is needed is an account of causal understanding that enables researchers to investigate both similarities and differences in cognitive abilities in an incremental evolutionary framework. Here we outline the ways in which a three-dimensional model of causal understanding fulfills these criteria. We describe how this approach clarifies what is at stake, illuminates recent experiments on both physical and social cognition, and plots a path for productive future research that avoids the romantic/killjoy dichotomy.

Highlights

  • Academic debates are a little like popular music

  • We proposed a step towards ending the animal cognition war

  • After identifying conceptual disagreement concerning the notion of causal understanding as one of the main forces driving the controversy, we suggested bracketing off normative issues concerning the notion of understanding and shifting the debate towards empirically tractable questions concerning the less contentious notion of causal cognition

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Academic debates are a little like popular music. A few have a strange ABBA-like “annoying-but-addictive” quality that makes them impossible to get out of your head. Debates in animal cognition often fall into this latter

Page 2 of 24
Page 4 of 24
Page 6 of 24
Page 8 of 24
Page 10 of 24
Page 12 of 24
Page 14 of 24
Page 16 of 24
Page 18 of 24
Conclusion
Compliance with ethical standards
Page 22 of 24
Page 24 of 24
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call