The yellow rat snake that may enjoy some human contact.

[KORBIN5895]

Originally Posted by Cory

I asked for people to freely share their viewpoints, evidence, and interpretations on the topic. All people, and I would greatly prefer if no one were to feel that their contributions would be unwelcome. I think this forum is a good place for such a free-flow of ideas since Rule 3 of sSnakeSs.com states:

"3. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. We take politeness very seriously. You are welcome to challenge others points of view and opinions, but do so respectively and thoughtfully."

On this basis I encourage all personal attacks and labeling others as "stupid" to be refrained from and expect civility and respect of diversity.

Are you telling me that we shouldn't call people what they are? If someone is doing something foolish we would call them a fool. If someone is picking on another person we call them a bully. When someone can't formulate a legitimate scientific argument to support their view but instead use pointless and totally irrelevant stories and unknown sources ghats pretty asinine and really stupid. Support your theory with facts first and observations seconds.

[StudentoReptile]

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

Are you telling me that we shouldn't call people what they are? If someone is doing something foolish we would call them a fool. If someone is picking on another person we call them a bully. When someone can't formulate a legitimate scientific argument to support their view but instead use pointless and totally irrelevant stories and unknown sources ghats pretty asinine and really stupid. Support your theory with facts first and observations seconds.

There is the truth, and calling people out when there are holes in their advice...and then there is flat-out excessive, unnecessary insulting. For example, I will not hesitate to question information I feel is inaccurate, or in the least, unfounded on facts. I may even call the person ignorant, and bluntly tell them they do not know what they are talking about. I try to refrain from name-calling (Ex: idiot, stupid, moron, etc....). The exception is labeling someone a troll or a cyber-bully, when the term is applicable.

That said, in my book, I personally define stupidity as follows: the deliberate choice to remain ignorant; to purposefully ignore sound advice and the wisdom of those more experienced than one's self.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

Are you telling me that we shouldn't call people what they are? If someone is doing something foolish we would call them a fool. If someone is picking on another person we call them a bully. When someone can't formulate a legitimate scientific argument to support their view but instead use pointless and totally irrelevant stories and unknown sources ghats pretty asinine and really stupid. Support your theory with facts first and observations seconds.

No, we do not need to refer to someone as a fool if s/he is acting foolishly. The most accurate comment would be that such a person is acting foolishly just as a human acting like a duck is not a duck. According to this site's poorly enforced rules, we do not have the privilege of insulting others but are required to be polite.

I asked for people's interpretations of two snake behaviours that I found odd. I didn't intend to encourage a meaningless exchange of insults. Rather than attack the views of another, why not explain your own interpretations of the question that this thread is named after and provide whatever sort of evidence you see fit to substantiate your viewpoint? May I suggest that you let me know what your interpretation of those two snake behaviours are, please.

[smy_749]

I don't think I actually said 'your stupid' if that counts for anything. I don't regret what I said, or take back any of my 'insults' though. I meant what I said, I only apologized because I thought this thread was for another purpose (I don't know what, but I was under the impression I derailed it from the original topic). If thats not the case, and I was on topic then great. Also, in my books, name calling is just blurting out insults. And to studentofreptile, I think your definition of stupid could be applied numerous times in this thread, so I guess I was justified :P

[Cory]

Politeness and respect are due to all people. If something needs criticism it should be the ideas and evidence promoted, not the person. In essence, no ad hominem attacks. Since science seems to be admired by many of those who have posted already then scientific discourse may be a good model to draw from. In scientific discourse, the position is up for critique, not the person who posited it.

There is also no value in calling an idea stupid. Instead, any weaknesses and flaws in the idea or evidence could be exposed. In other words, show how the point posited is wrong with substance and explanation, not with simple insults that may serve to anger or intimidate but not to enlighten. It is quite possible that the person whose views are being critiqued has missed something and could benefit greatly from correction. We are merely human, after all. Such a person might be far less willing to learn if s/he is frustrated by the person critiquing his / her views in a rude manner.

[smy_749]

Originally Posted by Cory

Politeness and respect are due to all people. If something needs criticism it should be the ideas and evidence promoted, not the person. In essence, no ad hominem attacks. Since science seems to be admired by many of those who have posted already then scientific discourse may be a good model to draw from. In scientific discourse, the position is up for critique, not the person who posited it.

There is also no value in calling an idea stupid. Instead, any weaknesses and flaws in the idea or evidence could be exposed. In other words, show how the point posited is wrong with substance and explanation, not with simple insults that may serve to anger or intimidate but not to enlighten. It is quite possible that the person whose views are being critiqued has missed something and could benefit greatly from correction. We are merely human, after all. Such a person might be far less willing to learn if s/he is frustrated by the person critiquing his / her views in a rude manner.

If we are having a scientific 'debate' , then both sides should be based on size.

If One says : Snakes require a limbic system in order to feel emotion like we do, and this is absent as far as we know.

And the other says: No, my snake loves me because when I flick my tongue he flicks it back.

Then what sort of academic discussion do you expect to ensue?

[Ryodraco]

I question if scientists really understand the brain enough to be certain a limbic system is the only method of feeling emotions or having a higher intelligence. More than once I've read or heard scientists who study brains remark that there is a great deal they still don't know about how the human brain actually functions (let alone the very different brains of reptiles, amphibians, birds and such). Studying emotions/intelligence in most animals is still a pretty young science as well.

At the same time though I am doubtful any snake forms a bond with its owner beyond "this scent/sight is not dangerous and may feed me or keep me warm." For me that is enough.

[smy_749]

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

I question if scientists really understand the brain enough to be certain a limbic system is the only method of feeling emotions or having a higher intelligence. More than once I've read or heard scientists who study brains remark that there is a great deal they still don't know about how the human brain actually functions (let alone the very different brains of reptiles, amphibians, birds and such). Studying emotions/intelligence in most animals is still a pretty young science as well.

At the same time though I am doubtful any snake forms a bond with its owner beyond "this scent/sight is not dangerous and may feed me or keep me warm." For me that is enough.

Agreed 100% , which is why I said from what we know currently, this is my stance.

[Cory]

Smy_749, politeness is mandated on this site, not scientific debate.

Regarding limbic systems, I'm not quite sure where the idea came from that reptiles lack limbic systems or are assumed to lack some sort of emotional life. Current evidence indicates quite the opposite. To illustrate this I quote the abstract from the article by Bruce and Neary, "The limbic system of tetrapods: a comparative analysis of cortical and amygdalar populations." as it appears in the journal Brain Behavior and Evolution (Brain Behav Evol. 1995;46(4-5):224-34.):

"Recent studies of the limbic system of tetrapods have made data available that challenge some of the long-held tenets of forebrain evolution. Using the basic principle of parsimony--that the best hypotheses concerning homologies are those requiring the fewest number of evolutionary changes--we have reevaluated comparisons of tetrapod limbic systems. Given the current data, the following points appear to be justified: (1) the common ancestors of reptiles and mammals had a well-developed limbic system in which the basic subdivisions and connections of the amygdalar nuclei were established; (2) the ventral part of the lateral pallium in amphibians appears to be a single structure which corresponds to at least four areas in reptiles: centromedial DVR, ventral anterior amygdala, lateral amygdala, and part of the lateral cortex; (3) the medial pallium in amphibians appears to be homologous with the dorsal and medial cortices in reptiles and with the general and hippocampal cortices in mammals: (4) the cortical targets of the main olfactory bulb in reptiles and mammals appear to be homologous, and their common ancestor probably had a corresponding olfactory pallial field; (5) the targets of the accessory olfactory bulb in amphibians, reptiles, and mammals appear to be homologous, with the exception of nucleus sphericus in reptiles, which lacks an obvious homologue in non-reptiles."

So there is very good, solid evidence that supports the probability of reptiles experiencing an emotional life. Arguments to the contrary are weighing in against a wealth of scientific publication.

[MDT]

Cory...I floated the "no limbic system"....again, I will stand by my assertions. I am all for research (I am a physician), but when you quote studies that compare "common ancestors", and use the terms "appear to be homologous" is the same as a drug company doing a study on a new drug and testing it on beagle puppies and trying to correlate that data to a human being. Show me a study that says, definitively that my snake is excited when I open the garage door to come in from work and I'll concede the argument that "my snake loves to chill with me while watching 'Die Hard' on the TV"....

[Aaron_S]

I'll have to simply say the fact that the article in particular is from 1995, nearly 20 years ago, would make the information dated for this discussion. There must have been more studies done on the limbic system since then. I'm sure we didn't stop researching the brain in 95.

[Zoo Nanny]

I recently read a paper that I found very interesting. I think many of you may find it interesting as well. Although it is mainly on the brains of mammalians and avians it does touch on reptilian brains also. I honestly am not sure on the intelligence of reptiles as a whole but have seen some interesting behavior that raised questions for me. I will be interested to see what is learned as additional studies are completed. Up until recently birds were considered unintelligent and without emotion. After years of in depth study the scientific community has proven that many birds have similiar traits to mammals with intelligence and emotions. The article is long but I think a good read for those of you who are interested. Mammalian and Avian Neuroanatomy and the Question of Consciousness in Birds

[lady_bug87]

Now now boys play nice.

[KORBIN5895]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

Now now boys play nice.

Sorry Lorilove but I don't know how to ....

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by KORBIN5895

Sorry Lorilove but I don't know how to ....

BAMF to the core