Comments on: Agenticity

By: Rhinanthus

Rhinanthus — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:23:09 +0000

That higher animals also possess “agenticity” is, I think, an empirical fact. My dog will bark whenever she hears a noise outside – even if it is just some snow falling from the roof. If she sees the snow fall she will not bark. I have no idea of the degree to which this is instinct vs. thought but the difference is irrelevent to the general argument. The default position in higher animals seems to be “if in doubt, assume that actions are caused by some amimate agent.”
What separates humans in this regard from other animals is the next step: “if in doubt, assume that actions are caused by some animate agent. If you see an action but no animate agent and also can’t see an inanimate cause, then conclude that the action was caused by an invisible agent”. We have only to go one step further to get to primitive religion. If we see a BIG action (one that we do not have the power to create) but no animate agent nor any obvious inanimate cause, then assume that the invisible agent is much more powerful than us.

By: James Turner

James Turner — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:41:22 +0000

Let us not get into a hurry to throw out the baby with the bath water. Patterns are a critical part of our nature. Neuroscience shows that patterns are how we learn and remember since patterns create pictures and research by Neuro-scientists like Eric Jensen and Maria Wolf have shown that memory is really pictorial in nature not word in nature. If you look at Howard Gardner’s work on learning styles what you see is patterns that are used to teach and learn. Let be a little more scientific in our discussion of patterns and look at all the facts not just those that meet our personal notions about patterns or for that matter Agenticity !!! Thanks for listening

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:30:54 +0000

@ An Apologist

I think the author was just using that as an analogy to help the reader understand type I and type II errors. That wasn’t the proof of his theory, it was an example of how it could work. Plus this is a news article on the internet, not the write up of a case study which would probably be long boring and no one would read it. Think of it as the abstract of a research paper.

By: An Apologist

An Apologist — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:28:13 +0000

Regarding your statement above: “If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error)”

What preconditions or underlying assumptions would have to be true in order for this assertion or claim to make sense? Seems to me animals would have to possess rationality and the ability to use discernment, but to apply “reason” is a huge assumption over an impossibly large logic chasm. Additonally, you would have to assume that this was also an inheritable trait, and that it could be passed on to offspring, that the same trait responsible for enabling animals to reason this well would not also develop in predators who would learn to employ “the old rustling in the grass trick” to flush out these animals, etc.)

I–and all readers–should ask: what are the preconditions of intelligibility (i.e. underlying unargued assumptions = presuppositions) would have to be present in order for this claim to make sense? Quite a bit it seems that have no scientific basis. You completely disregard the application of animal instinct (sight, sound, smell, hearing) as survival mechanisms, and instead grant such creatures the power of reason and discernment.

The Skeptical Inquirer, indeed!

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:02:15 +0000

I am a Deputy Sheriff and work at our counties detention center. Many of the detention officers cringe when I say during briefing before shift starts that I hope that it won’t be a busy day. They really believe that I have the ability to JINX things and make the opposite of what I wish for happen. Some of them try to get me to knock on wood. Ha Ha! Maybe I should say that I hope we have a busy day and see how they react to that!

Thanks Dr. Shermer for all your work!

By: dennis dorian

dennis dorian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:40:38 +0000

I love reading your work…you make the complicated seem simple.
I study Zen Buddhism (the Buddha (whoever) being a early rationalist) says to investigate everything, clearly.

I find this in your writings.
Thank You.