Advertisement

Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 347–355 | Cite as

Methodological Reflections on Exploring Beliefs in Animals

  • Manuel BremerEmail author
Article
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

A theory of the beliefs of non-human animals is not closed to us, only because we do not have beliefs of their kind. Starting from a theory of human beliefs and working on a building block model of propositional attitudes a theory of animal beliefs is viable. Such a theory is an example of the broader conception of a heterophenomenological approach to animal cognition. The theory aims at outlining the crucial differences between human and animal beliefs as well as the relations between these attitudes and theories of them. By this it contributes both to a theory of human cognition and to a theory of the evolutionary origin of human cognition. The capacities of animals can thus be appreciated without making animals minor humans. Human cognition can be seen in its uniqueness without cutting the ties to its evolutionary origin.

Keywords

Cognitive ethology Cognitive science Heterophenomenology Animal cognition Animal beliefs 

Methodologische Überlegungen zu tierischen Überzeugungen

Literaturangaben

  1. Allen, C. (1999). Animal concepts revisited. Erkenntnis, 51, S.33–S.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, C., & Hauser, M. (1991). Concept attribution in nonhuman animals. Philosophy of Science, 58, S.221–S.240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekoff, M., & Jamieson, D. (1996). (Hg.) Readings in animal cognition. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. (1964). Rationality. Towards an analysis. London.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (1976). Linguistic behaviour. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Bond, A., & Kamil, A. (2002). Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey. Nature, 415, S.609–S.614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bremer, M. (2006). Tierisches Bewusstsein, Anthropomorphismus und Heterophänomenologie. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 113, S.397–S.410.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, D. (1982). Rational animals. Dialectica, 36, S.318–S.327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (1999). The emergence of thought. Erkenntnis, 51, S.7–S.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeGrazia, D. (1996). Taking animals seriously. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Grau, J., Barstow, D., & Joynes, R. (1998). Instrumental learning within the spinal cord. Behavioral Neuroscience, 104, S.1366–S.1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffin, D. (1992). Animal minds. Chicago/London.Google Scholar
  13. Lima, S. (1996). The influence of models on the interpretation of vigilance. In Bekoff, Jamieson, S.201–S.216.Google Scholar
  14. Millikan, R. (1995). Pushmi-pullyu representations. Philosophical Perspectives, 9, S.185–S.200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shoemaker, S. (1991). Rationalität und Selbstbewußtsein. In B. Kienzle & H. Pape (Eds.) Dimensionen des Selbst. Frankfurt a.M., S.19–S.54.Google Scholar
  16. Wilder, H. (1996). Interpretive Cognitive Ethology. In Bekoff, Jamieson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches InstitutUniversität DüsseldorfDusseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations