Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
corvus

Why Do Sighthounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?

315 posts in this topic

Now I have a mental image of us all living a hermetically sealed town with 'scientists only' written at the gate, looking mournfully out at a community we can never be a part of :(:laugh:

They already exist to some degree Weasels - they called universities. ;)

Some young folk go in to one end and never re-emerge.

It's just a job tho - I consider myself a member of the public and community, my OH is a tradie, I mingle with all sorts of people.

I hope I don't end up finding a hidden cache of unemerged young people in the basement now :eek: Great there's some nightmares - 'night of the living undergraduates!'.

Undergraduates still have hope.. its those with tenure who are lost to humanity :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, they've even developed a sitcom about it.

Yeah but those are physicists. Totally different ;)

One is an engineer. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   

Hell, they've even developed a sitcom about it.

Yeah but those are physicists. Totally different ;)

One is an engineer. :cool:

Yeah, but he only has a masters :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_fan   
Let's look at the scientists who's research findings were that smoking was actually healthy, and there are many many more examples. Look at the scientists who sell out their ethics to the highest bidder, more often the pharmaceutical companies.

So a handful of scientists colours your entire view of science? Even though it was scientists who first started ringing the alarm bells on smoking, and who later were able to satisfy everyone (except the tobacco companies) that smoking was harmful? If you're going to pick a handful, why not the handful that benefited humanity?

I take all data into account when assessing a situation. I am not sure it is only a handful of scientists by the way, I think that is an understated amount.

I used the example to illustrate why public scepticism of scientists exists. If scientists choose to ignore this then so be it. All that does it to reinforce the public view that scientists live in a rarefied atmosphere out of touch with the community.

Take a look at weasels' post. Scientists are people too. You don't devote your life to frustration and crap pay because you're on the 'side of evil' and aren't deeply interested in whatever it is you research.

Tobacco companies used a handful of scientists to endorse the (entirely correct at one point) opinion that no causal link between smoking and lung cancer had been found. The rest was advertising (see http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2008/11/when_science_was_smoking_hot.php for examples). Calling these people "scientists" is like saying the white coats at the Ponds Institute are scientists. Any first-year stats or research methods text-book covers this topic in detail if you want to look at verified data.

Lots of people endure crap conditions and crap pay to do what they are interested in.

I used smoking as it was an easily recognised piece of research that the public are aware of, however, there are other areas where scientists have caused harm.

To not acknowledge this is fool hardy. People have been severely harmed in the name of science, often against their will, think of prisoners or people in mental institutions or the poor or displaced.

Yes scientists are people but I have found there to be a lack of people skills within the profession as has been displayed in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   
People have been severely harmed in the name of science, often against their will, think of prisoners or people in mental institutions or the poor or displaced.

I didn't say that science doesn't cause problems. I'm saying that it also finds solutions and in the entire course of history (while we're looking at ALL the data) it would be difficult to conclude that science was responsible for our issues (as opposed to "greed", "corruption" etc) and that we weren't better off as a result of science.

But to say that science causes prisons, serious mental health problems, poverty and war is indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_fan   
People have been severely harmed in the name of science, often against their will, think of prisoners or people in mental institutions or the poor or displaced.

I didn't say that science doesn't cause problems. I'm saying that it also finds solutions and in the entire course of history (while we're looking at ALL the data) it would be difficult to conclude that science was responsible for our issues (as opposed to "greed", "corruption" etc) and that we weren't better off as a result of science.

But to say that science causes prisons, serious mental health problems, poverty and war is indefensible.

Had I said that you would be correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   
People have been severely harmed in the name of science, often against their will, think of prisoners or people in mental institutions or the poor or displaced.

I didn't say that science doesn't cause problems. I'm saying that it also finds solutions and in the entire course of history (while we're looking at ALL the data) it would be difficult to conclude that science was responsible for our issues (as opposed to "greed", "corruption" etc) and that we weren't better off as a result of science.

But to say that science causes prisons, serious mental health problems, poverty and war is indefensible.

Had I said that you would be correct

Fair enough but you're going to have to unpack your own argument, as it stands it's not holding much water. It would take a lot of license to argue that atrocities of war (to name an example) were committed "in the name of science" but maybe you have better examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_fan   
People have been severely harmed in the name of science, often against their will, think of prisoners or people in mental institutions or the poor or displaced.

I didn't say that science doesn't cause problems. I'm saying that it also finds solutions and in the entire course of history (while we're looking at ALL the data) it would be difficult to conclude that science was responsible for our issues (as opposed to "greed", "corruption" etc) and that we weren't better off as a result of science.

But to say that science causes prisons, serious mental health problems, poverty and war is indefensible.

Had I said that you would be correct

Fair enough but you're going to have to unpack your own argument, as it stands it's not holding much water. It would take a lot of license to argue that atrocities of war (to name an example) were committed "in the name of science" but maybe you have better examples?

You are indeed missing the point. Science is not the cause but some scientists are opportunistic and use war, mental institutions, the poor, and the displaced as subjects in their research. People who have less opportunity to give informed consent and therefore bring the individual scientists and the profession as a whole into disrepute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   
Science is not the cause but some scientists are opportunistic and use war, mental institutions, the poor, and the displaced as subjects in their research. People who have less opportunity to give informed consent and therefore bring the individual scientists and the profession as a whole into disrepute.

Yes, historically these things have happened and this will colour the public perception of science. Do you think that scientists working within the profession choose to ignore this today?

As a student of psychology, ethics lessons begin in our first lecture and are continued through every piece of work that we submit and every comment we make in class. I don't know if this is true in other fields or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are rogue operators in every field, every job in the world. Science doesn't differ there. But, the good science and scientists have done far outweighs the bad. disproportionately so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raineth   
Now I have a mental image of us all living a hermetically sealed town with 'scientists only' written at the gate, looking mournfully out at a community we can never be a part of :(:laugh:

They already exist to some degree Weasels - they called universities. ;)

Some young folk go in to one end and never re-emerge. And they spend their lives learning more and more about less and less and lose the ability to engage with anyone other than scientists.

Hell, they've even developed a sitcom about it.

In many ways science is like a big jig-saw puzzle. What looks to you like learning more and more about less and less is often actually people filling in pieces of the puzzle. Sometimes these pieces of the puzzle can have effects far beyond what you would think :) and you've probably benefitted from many of them in your life time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alyosha   

From Svartberg & Forkman (2002):

"The shyness–boldness axis, a fundamental dimension in humans that can be defined as an individual’s general tendency to approach

novel objects and willingness to take risks (Kagan et al., 1988; Wilson et al., 1994)"

I' jumping back from the love or hate scientists bit here and wondering at the above.

This whole thread was started on the basis of survey information on some dogs (mostly greyhounds) being compared to a shyness/boldness axis defined especially for humans, then that information being used to project a result across a varied group of dog breeds.

Does this seem completely ridiculous to anyone else here?? Seems like anthropomorphism taken to the extreme.

And, you just try and keep my dogs away from a "novel" object!! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   

From Svartberg & Forkman (2002):

"The shyness–boldness axis, a fundamental dimension in humans that can be defined as an individual’s general tendency to approach

novel objects and willingness to take risks (Kagan et al., 1988; Wilson et al., 1994)"

I' jumping back from the love or hate scientists bit here and wondering at the above.

This whole thread was started on the basis of survey information on some dogs (mostly greyhounds) being compared to a shyness/boldness axis defined especially for humans, then that information being used to project a result across a varied group of dog breeds.

Does this seem completely ridiculous to anyone else here?? Seems like anthropomorphism taken to the extreme.

Not really, the differences and similarities between species are the source of much debate. A lot of what we know about humans came from rats, for e.g., but a scientist can't say "rats do this, therefore humans will also do this". You have to find a way to satisfy everyone that it's true, on rational grounds. That's what happens here, the scientists say "humans have this, let's find out if dogs do too".

If you read the paper (the link is in the quoted bit) it discusses this at some length, how it has been investigated, why etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBL   

I am a scientist (an ecologist) though I have strayed into environmental education - I am married to an IT nerd. We are a massively geeky family!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   

I am a scientist (an ecologist) though I have strayed into environmental education

What, with the general public? Ewww, gross! Why??!?

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Svartberg & Forkman (2002):

"The shyness–boldness axis, a fundamental dimension in humans that can be defined as an individual’s general tendency to approach

novel objects and willingness to take risks (Kagan et al., 1988; Wilson et al., 1994)"

I' jumping back from the love or hate scientists bit here and wondering at the above.

This whole thread was started on the basis of survey information on some dogs (mostly greyhounds) being compared to a shyness/boldness axis defined especially for humans, then that information being used to project a result across a varied group of dog breeds.

Does this seem completely ridiculous to anyone else here?? Seems like anthropomorphism taken to the extreme.

And, you just try and keep my dogs away from a "novel" object!! :laugh:

I suppose my questions are more basic. Does it matter and if it does, why does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   
I suppose my questions are more basic. Does it matter and if it does, why does it matter?

I could give you a passable answer but I'd be out of my depth. Hopefully someone like RevJo can answer that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weasels   

Undergraduates still have hope.. its those with tenure who are lost to humanity :laugh:

I count myself lucky that I escaped academia and got into consulting then :laugh:

To say science is flawed is to say humanity is flawed (which it clearly is), since the society we have built is inextricably linked to the discoveries made using the scientific method.

I'm sure people in every profession have used their skills and position to get what they want at the expense of others. Banking, medicine, politics and puppy farming spring to mind. Of course, as in broader society, jerks are in the minority, and most people just go to work every day thinking 'how can I best do my job today?'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The AVA have taken an open, public stand against BSL. Where are the research scientists in this?

You can ask RevJo about that, not a simple matter unfortunately. The data is already out there, I'm not sure how much more we need, but it's being ignored anyway. Do you think the scientific community can do better in communicating these ideas? I think they probably can, we can always do better in anything really.

We couldn't get ethics approval to do what we really wanted to do to explore the factors involved in dog attacks. We did some work on the issue but I was keen to really get stuck into it in depth. I'm one of the few people in the position of having a good working knowledge of purebred dogs, BSL and research. But sadly ethics committees are extremely conservative these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×