AWAY ! Unfortunately.
Nowadays, proximate explanations are, at least almost always, in terms that are neurobiological, endocrinological, or molecular-genetic . There usually appears to be absolutely no concept of a behavioral pattern or change in a behavioral pattern (either, of course, in response to aspects of the current environment) AS themselves a proximate cause of a new behavior pattern [change] -- I.E. a true observable behavior pattern phenomenon proceeding, and needed for, the key subsequent behavior pattern change. I believe there is a BIAS there , due to our philosophical cultural traditional-beliefs.
And, this is a problem.
THIS PROBLEM HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, and certainly has not always been the case in ethology. The ethology Tinbergen and Lorenz were given a Nobel prize for often did have one behavior pattern as a proximate cause for certain behavior pattern(s) that followed. This is what needs to be re-learned and abided by or real ethology may be lost. Such a relationship between behavior patterns was a hallmark of classical ethology.
Modern ethologists failed to have the "backbone" to maintain that which was most distinctive and best about ETHOLOGY. They basically "caved in" to how others characterized them. (Now, the field is indistinguishable from comparative psychology and/or evolutionary psychology.)
Listen up, International Society for Human Ethology !
Real science, real biological science, the real biology of behavior DEPENDS on behavioral pattern(s), themselves, being seen as a major proximate cause of new behavior patterning [and of behavior pattern change]. Ethology must return to what it uniquely was OR THERE IS NO CHANCE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. I am sure, if I were a analytic philosopher, I could argue this. It really is logically and scientifically irrefutable. Behavioral sciences, of all "stripes", have been becoming more and more stupid -- there is no better word (since they defy biology and defy science). (Simply look for the lack of the words "behavior pattern" and you are on the way to seeing the whole problem.)
P.S. Consider this a big "kiss ...." to our philosophical cultural heritage; certainly the stupidity is a "love letter" to those arm-chair thinkers.
I concur that classical ethology needs to return and play an important role. It seems obvious that one behavioral pattern can itself be the proximate cause of a new behavioral pattern. Now that's not always the case, but we must not minimize the instances where this is occurring.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology