The prairie dogs are the animals who have the most complex verbal languages next to humans.
Those squeaks aren't just "sounds"--they're words, with abstract meanings.
Evidence indicates that the different species of prairie dogs speak different languages, and that prairie dogs of one species in different areas speak different dialects of the same language.
This is not mere "communication". They are speaking real languages, with nouns and adjectives.
So far, it's mainly the "alarm calls" that have been studied. These are how one prairie dog tells the others, "A yellow rectangular dog is coming".
There appear to be many other types of prairie dog speech which scientists have yet to be able to discern the meaning of.
when i worked at a ski resort during summer (it as still open for tourists to ride the gondola) there was one spot on the road that they prairie doggies liked to line up along and play suicide games. Every single time a car drove past, they would run across the road all at once. I am convinced they were doing it deliberately for the thrill of seeing how close they could get to the car without going under the wheels. They didn't do this when there were no cars. Only when a car came.
>driving along road
>prairie dogs shoot across like they're doing a 100m dash
>tense up waiting for the *thump*
>sometimes no thump, breath sigh of relief
Just think - we might have human to prairie dog translation devices within our lifetime. We have so much to learn from then, and we have so much to teach. If his research is completed then he is opening to door for human-nonhuman communication in general! That's really exciting!
Nb4 some asshole comes in here waving the 'animals can't feel pain' dickflag and ruins the thread.
On topic though that's fucking awesome, and I wonder how ignorant rednecks are going to react when we have little communicator boxes strapped to us.
Off topic but you kind of brought it up.
I would have to wonder how difficult it would be to study their vocalizations and "translate" back and possibly communicate (albeit very simply) back.
It really makes me wonder how alien their frame of reference will be when we're able to communicate with each other. Can they be reasoned with? Will they be able to understand concepts like bartering or peace? Do they have concepts we've never even imagined?
I'm picturing a device that picks up their chirps and translates it into English on a screen, like a smartphone app that translates morse code audio into English text. You type in what you want to say back and it comes out as a series of chirps they can understand.
>Types in "I love your moms fur"
>App fucks up and translates "I fucked your moms fur"
>Senator of the High Prairie is enraged
>Possible Peace Meeting ruined
>There appear to be many other types of prairie dog speech which scientists have yet to be able to discern the meaning of.
this is called apophenia.
the desire to see patterns where none exist.
this particular apophenia is an anthropomorphization, a desire to see human behaviors where none exist. A scientist doesn't speculate about things that haven't been discovered. They discover them BEFORE bragging about it.
this is why modern ethology is a joke. Not a funny joke, just a joke.
>without any good proof that they're right
that's still not how it works.
if you want to pretend prairie dogs are discussing the price of rice in china YOU have to bring proof.
the assumption without proof is that they aren't.
Or, you know, you could just entertain a cool idea for an hour or two, then go about your day without taking everything so fucking seriously. If they actually do have complicated languages then some scientist will figure it out and figure out a way to talk back, not us since we aren't the scientists working on it.
We figured out a way to communicate with fucking bees, I'm sure if this has any legitamacy in it scientists will figure it out eventually.
I'm not going to pay $50 to find out prairie dogs use different calls for different types of predators, or that those calls vary by location.
these are well-known facts.
the part I don't agree with is exactly the one I quoted.
>There appear to be many other types of prairie dog speech which scientists have yet to be able to discern the meaning of.
so scientists have no problem understanding alarm calls but somehow are just too stupid to know what all the other noises mean?
don't be ridiculous. If they meant anything we'd know it by now. When you encounter statistical noise you don't just assume it's the works of Shakespeare in code.
The simplest explanation for why we don't know the meaning is that there is no meaning. If you're going to make claims aside from the simplest one, you best have some evidence.
>You don't know it's fiction till it's proven wrong, in the same way it can't be taken as solid fact till it's proven right.
science doesn't prove anything right or wrong.
it doesn't announce facts.
it assumes every idea is fiction until you bring some evidence to support it.
OP's post is about science, so your catholic rules of reality don't apply here.
Thinking back to my SIXTH FUCKING GRADE science class, the scientific approach is to assert a hypothesis and then run experiment in an attempt to support for or against the original hypothesis.
Note that even in your own quote the word "appear" is used. No bragging or insisting without evidence something unproven here; Just asserting a hypothesis that prairie dogs communicate about more than just predictors.
>A scientist doesn't speculate about things that haven't been discovered.
Do you even know what that word means? Speculation is the foundation of the scientific method. Researchers don't just look around randomly in an attempt to find something.
Clearly your education lies outside the STEM fields.
>so scientists have no problem understanding alarm calls but somehow are just too stupid to know what all the other noises mean?
Watch the video.
The scientist explains that they have seen other forms of what may be verbal language and visual language in prairie dogs but haven't yet discerned the meaning because they don't understand the context in which those sounds and actions are made.
>Speculation is the foundation of the scientific method
sorry, I should've been more clear.
we don't publish hypotheses without any evidence. That kind of speculation is saved for the conclusion of a study, not handed out to the press before any research has been done.
>So what you're saying is, science is based on the appeal to ignorance fallacy?
no, science takes the position that things are what they seem until proven otherwise.
evidence indicates prairie dogs aren't discussing Hollywood actors, because that would be weird and there's no evidence that they are.
you don't get to automatically believe crazy shit because there's no evidence against it.
>no, science takes the position that things are what they seem until proven otherwise.
>evidence indicates prairie dogs aren't discussing Hollywood actors, because that would be weird and there's no evidence that they are.
This is a strawman. Nobody suggested that prairie dogs were discussing Hollywood actors or anything completely outside the realm of prairie dog experience except the pseudoskeptic brigade that's set upon this thread like a swarm of hungry locusts.
>you don't get to automatically believe crazy shit because there's no evidence against it.
Suspending judgment =/= believing.
Assuming something is false merely because it hasn't been proven true is not skepticism. It's literally a logical fallacy.
>Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
Do prairie dogs discuss Hollywood actors? Almost certainly not, because such things are completely outside the realm of prairie dog interests and experience. Similarly I can assume that African Pygmy people are almost certainly not discussing prairie dogs, because prairie dogs are completely outside their sphere of reference.
Do they discuss some other things than impending predators? This is plausible because predators are not the only part of prairie dog experience, and they have been shown to vocalize in the absence of predators. This MAY be a sign that they are talking about things such as food, water, or other things relevant to prairie dog life.
Your understanding of reality ("always assume the negative claim unless the positive claim has been proven") is logically fallacious.
Your argument is an appeal to ignorance peppered with strawmen and it's tiresome.
>one alien makes a remark about an other alien like "Xoxan is fucking ugly today"
>you play that alien sound to an other alien family they go
"the fuck is Xoxan?"
to an other unrelated alien
"What, fuck off"
to an other
>"Nah he cool"
That means something and would be impossible to decode.
>This is a strawman.
no, it's an argumentum ad absurdum.
notice your reply:
>Do prairie dogs discuss Hollywood actors? Almost certainly not, because such things are completely outside the realm of prairie dog interests and experience
see, you have a reason for rejecting the argument, a reason based on evidence (these things are outside the real of prairie dog experience).
the assumption isn't based on a lack of evidence and thus isn't an argument from ignorance.
neither is science's rejection of the assertion that prairie dogs have a complex spoken language. There is much evidence they don't.
pretty much everything we know about them indicates they don't.
in fact it is your assertion that's an appeal to ignorance.
you say no evidence exists so it might be true. Aside from being an appeal to ignorance it's simply false. there is much evidence in place, you just choose to ignore it.
>neither is science's rejection of the assertion that prairie dogs have a complex spoken language. There is much evidence they don't.
There is strong evidence they do. Their squeaks in the presence of predators are sentences.
They use a different vocalization to warn others of a coyote versus a dog. They have a squeak to describe a "fat man" and a different squeak to describe a "thin man".
Their squeaks are equivalent to nouns and adjectives in human language.
>you say no evidence exists so it might be true. Aside from being an appeal to ignorance...
Saying a proposition MIGHT be true because it hasn't been proven false isn't an appeal to ignorance.
Appeal to ignorance is saying something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or it's false because it hasn't been proven true.
The minute you throw "might" in there, it's not an appeal to ignorance.
codebreakers assume somewhere in the language there must be a sound that corresponds to an object or behavior.
if none are found then all the words correspond to abstracts and you'd have to wonder how they explain the meaning of each word to their young without any frame of reference.
so no, that doesn't work. If we can't understand it there's no reason to think they could either. Unless the language is inherited, like bird song. But then it lacks any complex meaning.
deductively no, but inductively they were wrong to say it exists without evidence.
science is inductive, so it couldn't claim the atom exists until evidence for its existence had been observed.
also you keep saying "proven."
only deduction proves things.
induction can't prove anything, and science is inductive.
I can't categorically say that Jehovah DOESN'T exist.
that's a positive claim without evidence.
every negative claim is just the inverse statement of a positive one.
however just because I can't say that Jehovah doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that he does.
all you can say is he MIGHT exist, which is a meaningless claim. Anything might exist.
that would be pretty complex, if it's true.
there are alternative simpler explanations that haven't been ruled out as far as I know.
however the very complexity of the language makes it easier to identify. So if we've got a bunch of other noises nobody can decode, why would we assume they're more complex (easier to identify) when the simpler explanation is they're simpler (harder to identify)?
>I can't categorically say that Jehovah DOESN'T exist.
That's true, you can't.
>that's a positive claim without evidence.
Saying Jehovah does exist is a positive claim without evidence. Saying he might exist (or simply not denying his existence) is a suspension of judgment.
>every negative claim is just the inverse statement of a positive one.
Then why do you "negative" claims to a lower standard of evidence than positive claims?
>however just because I can't say that Jehovah doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that he does.
>all you can say is he MIGHT exist, which is a meaningless claim.
Proof that it's meaningless?
>Anything might exist.
I don't think logical impossibilities or contradictions can exist, unless logic is somehow inherently flawed.
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God cannot exist. Epicurus proved that based the existence of evil--for if evil exists, such a God is logically impossible.
>Then why do you "negative" claims to a lower standard of evidence than positive claims?
Generally the negative claim is statistically more likely to be true.
>Proof that it's meaningless?
it's inductively meaningless, published science deals solely with things that are known to exist.
>unless logic is somehow inherently flawed.
that doesn't raise any flags in your head?
>Epicurus proved that based the existence of evil--for if evil exists, such a God is logically impossible.
that's assuming evil exists, something for which there is also no empirical evidence.
>in any animal.
Investigation of language in animals is in its infancy. Even the understanding of how humans learn language is far from complete. Some study on prairie dogs suggests that their warning calls, proven to be complex (as they consist of nouns and adjectives and show differentiation between similar predators such as dogs and coyotes) may be inherited.
That the warning calls are complex has been demonstrated.
That they are inherited has also been demonstrated.
>maybe, but they'd be the only one so you'd need some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that extraordinary claim.
Are you aware that the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes from Marcello Truzzi?
Maybe you should do some reading on him and his philosophy.
>Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
>Denying, when only doubt has been established
>Double standards in the application of criticism
>The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
>Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
>Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
>Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
>Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
>Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
He characterized "true" skepticism as:
>Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
>No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
>Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
>Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
>Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
>Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
According to the guy who literally coined the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", you're a pseudoskeptic.
>That the warning calls are complex has been demonstrated.
again, as long as alternative explanations exist and they're simpler than the proposed explanation, the explanation hasn't been demonstrated.
this is a problem with accepting science on authority.
it's often wrong.
>please, I was an asshole way before bugguy
>anyone that disagrees with me must be an asshole.
if you met me I'm certain you'd like me. Almost everyone does. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and pretend you're right about everything though.
>Epicurus proved that based the existence of evil--for if evil exists, such a God is logically impossible.
Babby's first religious philosophy?
There are literally dozens of defenses and theodicies against The Problem of Evil.
>if you met me I'm certain you'd like me. Almost everyone does.
I notice you didn't respond to the empirical argument that evil doesn't exist so it can't be used to dispute a deity.
or for that matter the empirical argument that a deity doesn't exist so it doesn't matter if evil "proved" anything about it.
As a midwesterner and long time accidental prairie dog observer, I can totally buy that they have a language. There's an exhibit in our state natural history museum that explains prairie dog societies.
Some kind of communication has to happen for any kind of 'society' to exist and most rodents are credited with above average intelligence compared to other mammals.
Also, the name was an accident from another post on a different board.
my only complaint was that people can't just be happy with what we know about prairie dog language, they have to make up some bullshit to make it better somehow.
in reality prairie dogs don't exactly have a language. Not like we do anyways.
they use different tones and lengths of the same noise to convey information.
that information is known to include:
1. the color of the predator they see
2. how urgent the threat is.
nothing more or less than that is known about their language. Even that isn't entirely known since the sounds used to denote color are indistinguishable from those used to express urgency, so it remains possible they see certain colors of predator as more or less dangerous.
None of which is to imply we've decoded their language, or that there's any reason to suspect it's more complex or comprehensive than the stuff that's already been discovered.
in fact what we know is pretty amazing considering these animals are only slightly more intelligent than a carrot and not nearly as tasty.
but people can't be happy with that, they have to turn it into a Dr. Doolittle fairy tale or some shit.
>they use different tones and lengths of the same noise to convey information.
>that information is known to include:
>1. the color of the predator they see
>2. how urgent the threat is.
>nothing more or less than that is known about their language.
They differentiate between the different types of creatures they see. Not just the colors.
They differentiate between dogs and coyotes.
>They differentiate between dogs and coyotes
fine, show me a citation.
because I just spent a couple hours on google scholar reading about prairie dog language and that didn't come up anywhere.
alright then, I'll stay if you insist.
the dude couldn't get his ideas published in a scientific journal because not a single scientist agrees with him.
so he publishes it up in a book and you guys eat it up like it's god's own truth?
credulity at its finest.
they don't make people much more gullible than you.
>get high in a field
>watch the sun set
>listen to birds play singing games
I still whistle it to this day. It was like beethoven's fifth with slightly different rhythyms
Why must you be told the obvious? Nobody in this thread treats it as law, it's an entertaining possibility with some research and theories to support it. Didn't you say you were leaving the thread, because you're just embarrassing yourself with every post
>Didn't you say you were leaving the thread
you kept talking to me so I stayed.
so far you're the only one to admit that it's not true.
if everyone else before you said that I wouldn't be here because we'd be in perfect agreement.
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it isn't true, I implied the hypothesis has not yet reached a conclusion. Only morons deal in absolutes unless they're 100% backed by thorough fact.
You're welcomed to stop posting anytime, or at least stop posting like such an embarrassing tryhard.
>I implied the hypothesis has not yet reached a conclusion.
it in fact did reach a conclusion though.
he offered his work to his colleagues and they rejected it (presumably on the grounds of unsupported speculation) at which point he published it in a book for the public.
it has been weighed and judged false by science.
there is no more conclusive conclusion for an hypothesis.
the first line was what I said and the second line is how you misunderstood it.
I'm curious where you stumbled. How did you get from what I said to what you thought I said?
telling me how you fucked up will help me dumb my statements down for people such as yourself to understand.
Science is not a person nor a council. What the man did with his incomplete hypothesis is not an indication of its validity, it only shows that he cuts corners. More data need to be recorded and studied before this hypothesis reaches a true conclusion.
>Science is not a person nor a council.
in this case it certainly was both though.
he presumably submitted his work to both persons and councils that apparently rejected it.
as you say, probably for laziness.
I don't think you understand what the definition of no meaning is, but sure, carry on like you're a genius.
I'd love to meet guys like you in person. You must be the most autistic fucks ever.
>I don't think you understand what the definition of no meaning is
I used it in a very specific context and you broadened the context to make it false.
I understand what you did, I'm just curious if you see it and can tell me how I can word it so disingenuous fuckstains like yourself don't twist my words in future.
>You must be the most autistic fucks ever.
I am. I'm also smarter, wealthier, and better looking than you, so that helps.
>I used it in a very specific context and you broadened the context to make it false
Even in the context you used it, it still doesn't make sense. The fact that I broadened it makes no difference.
>I am. I'm also smarter, wealthier, and better looking than you, so that helps.
>you shouldn't condemn a rejected theory as a false theory
depends why it was rejected and why he didn't finish.
In this case he chose not only to skip supporting his hypotheses, but he went ahead and published them as if they were fact despite his failure.
to me that says they failed but he didn't feel like giving them up so he decided to lie to a gullible public.
>Even in the context you used it, it still doesn't make sense.
I meant very specifically that the reason scientists haven't discovered the meanings of some prairie dog vocalizations is likely because those particular vocalizations and only those vocalizations (the ones scientists haven't been able to find a meaning for) don't have any meaning.
was that clearer?
Because I've learned more reading what's true and what's not than anyone else itt knows or cares to know about the subject.
not only that but I have an eidetic memory so next time this stuff comes up I can reel off links and arguments without even thinking about it.
meaning this subject can soon be relegated to /x/ where it belongs.
>It's utter bullshit
you find it inconceivable that the reasons animals might make a particular noise might change, that a single noise could mean millions of different things depending on the situation?
you think all noises animals make have one universal meaning and one alone, and that's always true for that noise?
because if you were right we'd be talking to animals all the time.
of course you're not right.
>You are a fucking idiot.
I think I see where you tripped up.
when I said it has no meaning I meant it has no (single, universal) meaning.
you took that as it has no meaning of any sort including situational meanings.
Since we're talking about translating language I thought my statement would be clear. Because for a word to have meaning in language is for it to have a particular meaning.
Unlike a word like "fuck" which has no particular meaning because it has hundreds of situational meanings. Or a noise like "uhh" that has even less of a particular meaning but millions of situational meanings.
anyways I think I understand. I don't know how I could've worded it better for retards. I'll have to think about that since you're clearly no help at all.
have a good evening. Stay away from the lead paint.
>talking about translating meanings of prairie dog vocalizations
>you chime in with your untranslatable meanings
your comments have literally nothing to do with what I said or the conversation in general. If anything you agreed with me that the sounds have no identifiable meaning.
of course you fucked up. Try to keep up with what people are talking about.
oh shit, I didn't realize it was you I was arguing with....
I'm sorry, if I saw your name I would've ignored you. I feel bad picking on you, Ausfag. It's like kicking handicapped kids.
>The prairie dogs are the animals who have the most complex verbal languages next to humans.
based on what? Everything you said can easily be said about several species of whale and monkey too.
You don't need people to block you buddy, drop the trip and name. Ya don't need it.
You are a strong anon and a good friend, stop worrying about what random people think of you and worry about your friends and people that care about you.
>stop worrying what random people think of you
I don't worry at all about it. I dont please everyone, life is good. What I'm worry about now is getting and building a good cage for my prairie dog pups.