> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds.
What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default assumption would be that animals and humans exist along a spectrum and there isn't a sharp cliff where humans are 100% conscious and empathetic but dogs are 0%. The claim that humans are categorically different than other animals is the extraordinary one, not the claim that we are made of mostly the same stuff.
The only reason why animal consciousness has been controversial historically is a religious one—the Bible has typically been read as placing humanity in a category of its own. And yet we see countless secular scientists clinging to that perspective when even a cursory glance at the evidence and a basic application of Occam's razor would suggest the opposite.
What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default assumption would be that animals and humans exist along a spectrum and there isn't a sharp cliff where humans are 100% conscious and empathetic but dogs are 0%. The claim that humans are categorically different than other animals is the extraordinary one, not the claim that we are made of mostly the same stuff.
The only reason why animal consciousness has been controversial historically is a religious one—the Bible has typically been read as placing humanity in a category of its own. And yet we see countless secular scientists clinging to that perspective when even a cursory glance at the evidence and a basic application of Occam's razor would suggest the opposite.