Re: elephant burials

Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:43:02 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:
>

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:09:45 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>

Martin Harran wrote:
>

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:47:06 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>

some time ago, Martin, I and a few others discussed burials,
and the way humans think about and relate to dead ancestors.
>
One question in this context was if similar behaviour can
be found in other animals. Here's a short paper on a recently discovered "elephant graveyard" - carefully argued
I'd say, without overegging the evidence
https://theconversation.com/elephant-calves-have-been-found-buried-what-does-that-mean-225409?
>
and here the academic paper it's based on
https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/8826

>

They have not overegged it in regard to the findings suggesting
*burial* but I see nothing to support a jump from that to *grieving*.

>
That's because that was not the subject of that study, for this
you'd need to follow the links that they provide, which gets you inter alia to Anderson JR. 2016 Comparative thanatology. Curr. Biol. 26, R543?R556. who discusses
the emotional underpinnings of these activities. The findings
about burials support the analysis in studies like Anderson's

>

I was reacting to the summary in your first link where they say "If
this conclusion is accurate, these observations could indicate an
understanding of *death and grief* potentially unlike anything else
we've seen in the animal kingdom, revealing yet another way in which
humans are not as unique as previously thought." (My emphasis added.)

>

I haven't read the full paper but a quick search for grief/grieving
doesn't turn up anything in it so I assume the authors didn't make
this association, it was the person who wrote the article for The
Conversation who claim to exercise "academic rigour, journalistic
flair."

>
That seems a bit unfair, There is a "could" and a "potentially" in
there, and that seems perfectly plausible. We observe a behaviour in population A that we know is (also) a reaction to grief. We
then observe the same behaviour in population B, and there is
no obvious explanation other than grief. Concluding on that basis
that this "could" be an indicator that also population B experiences
grief seems OK - one can then reject the explanation, on all sorts of
grounds, but that does not change the fact that the case for grief is stronger with this observation than without it.

I don't think I am being unfair. Various people have commented here at
various times about writers of 'popular science' articles stretching
claims beyond what the researchers themselves claim. This is another
example of that. Acceptable, perhaps, in a newspaper article but IMO
not acceptable in a source claiming academic rigour.

Just for clarity, I don't have any issue with animal burials or animal
grieving, my issue is with unwarranted conclusions. There is
significant evidence to support animals burying their dead, but I
haven't seen anything that directly supports them grieving.

Sure, popular writing "can" be misleading. But the question is if this
is an example of it And you do not address the argument I made. So to restate, I'd say if we observe in one population a behaviour X that
is explained through grieving, and we then observe the same behaviour
in a different population Y, and don't have any other explanation why
they do X, that I'd say is at least some evidence that the first population also experiences grief - definitely enough to permit that
these "could" indicate grief. After all, if not similarity in behaviour
what other indication could there possibly be?