The scientific community is meant to be skeptical. If we wholeheartedly adopted every claim an instagrammer made online, we’d all be dead of covid or tide pod poisoning.
The only evidence we see of Bunny’s knowledge is what’s presented on their social media accounts. As noted in the article by a scientist, we are more likely to latch on to the one time a button press has meaning and disregard the nine that don’t. All we see of Bunny is the wins, so it’s really not scientific evidence of intelligence.
I will admit that what Bunny presents is compelling stuff, but there is no scientific rigour involved with the claims.
I’ve seen other dogs with buttons whose owners claim intelligence, but their buttons are for things like ‘walk’, ‘food’, ‘play’, and ‘love’. The dog could press any of those buttons and expect to receive a good outcome. Of course it’s going to feel like communication when the dog hits “play”, and is happy when you play with it.
If it requires a combination of an especially clever dog and a human that is willing to give an especially large amount of attention, then it may be tough to get enough controlled and studied instances of it happening in order for it to meet rigorous scientific standards. If this is the case, then I wonder if some sort of a setup that involves a private AI dog tutor that can give endless attention and is able to expertly watch and read the animal would be able to eventually help the dog make significant progress with a large enoughbl number of dogs to really have evidence one way or the other.
Oh no! Don’t disprove my claims and kill any social media clout and merchandising opportunities that I might have.
There’s toxic people everywhere. Especially once you go online. Not sure that can ever be helped. And yeah, some of those work in science.
Being skeptical of a talking dog is not toxicity. Cut it out.
She’s not complaining about the skeptisism. The quote is:
“Some people got angry. ‘Animals can’t talk,’ they say. But most of it is not even worth my time,” Devine said. “My perspective is you can believe what you want to believe. This is our day-to-day life. I’m not selectively editing; I’m not cherry-picking.”
It mentions she is actively cooperating with some professors to understand this phenomena better.
Did you read the article or the headline? Scientists are not toxic for being skeptical, the dog owner just prefers they believe her. Several studies are mentioned that disprove previous claims, which is reason enough for skepticism.
