(June 30, 2018 at 11:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote:(June 29, 2018 at 2:21 am)Mathilda Wrote: That's a claim and now that's actual evidence.
Thing is that we need to evaluate the claim and the evidence separately. This is what Huggy didn't understand in the thread about moral behaviour in animals. I used the evidence provided by Frans De Waal but disagreed with his interpretation of that evidence. In other words, the claim.
Uh no...
The claim YOU made was that animals have a sense of morality, and you referenced Frans De Waal who expressly stated that he wouldn't call animals moral beings. The fact that you would reject an experts conclusion of his own research (that YOU referenced), when it contradicts your point speaks volumes.
Yes. Because I am also a qualified scientist that has researched the functional role of emotions. That's how science works.
My point still stands though, which you seem unable to grasp. I disagreed with Frans De Waal's claim, not his evidence. This is possible to do in science because the two are specified as such. This is not the case with the Bible or with xtians who do not understand the difference. This is why they end up using circular logic.