Hello!
Unfortunately, my topic is not as interesting as drift,
and I have only one child.
But I think that my theme anyway
concerns many of you present here.
Please raise your hands to those who have pets.
And who treats these animals as members of their families?
Yes, you are quite a lot.
Agree, when you see a dog that asks you for food,
or when you iron a cat that climbed on your lap
and interferes with working with a computer, because he wanted attention,
you treat these creatures as conscious beings.
Many years ago a scientific biological article came into my hands,
in which I was struck by the description of the animal.
The impression was that the animal was only there
some soulless object of study, and even more so no one is conscious.
And then I thought: what was the attitude to the animal
throughout the history of the development of human thought?
It turned out that the Bible teaches us,
that it is necessary to command and dominate the animal.
Descartes considered animals a little more perfect than machines.
And in the twentieth century, although the rational activity in animals was recognized,
but the same Pavlov, for example, believed,
that the psyche can not be the object of scientific study.
That is, it turns out that there are some contradictions between the fact,
how we perceive the animal and how it is written about in the scientific literature,
and all these contradictions are somehow reflected in the language of scientific articles.
Here is a fragment of the same article before you:
“The solution to the problem of preventing aircraft collisions with birds
The increasing attention is paid to aviation equipment because it suffers
especially the great damage caused by such collisions. “
You will have to strain a little now, because there will be scientific texts,
and you have to get into them. But nonetheless.
In general, what does the author say about this?
The author here is interested in economic damage: “engineering suffers”
and the bird is only a factor that this damage brings.
And further in the same text there is: “birds are injured,” “birds are causing damage,
“Birds are polluting”, “they are a factor” and so on.
It is interesting that in the pages of this same magazine
in an article devoted to about the same topic,
we meet a completely different language, see:
“There are two problems: a short circuit occurs and predatory birds die.
In the first case, these are economic losses, in the second case – moral and ecological,
Since the death of any predator leads to a violation of the biocenotic process. “
Of course, economic losses are important for the author, that aviation equipment suffers –
probably, it was just given money, to write an article,
because it interests people.
But the problem of the death of birds – you see what word is chosen: “death”
not in vain is considered as a moral problem.
In 2012, Cambridge was proclaimed a declaration of animal awareness,
that is, animals, mammals and birds, were recognized as conscious beings.
And there, in this declaration it is said that animals are conscious beings,
capable of feelings and worthy of moral consideration.
25 leading neuroscientists, neurophysiologists, psychiatrists
justified their point of view.
Of course, this point of view is not yet universally recognized, quite the contrary.
Rather, in the scientific community it is commonly believed that consciousness –
it is a purely human ability to reflect reality.
Nevertheless, scientific thought in this sense is now being formed before our very eyes,
and it is not yet known where this will lead.
But I, as a linguist, studying scientific texts,
I can now draw some conclusions and show them to you.
Here, look:
“The energy required for migratory flight is extracted from food
due to a sharp increase in the intensity of nutrition and the amount of food eaten. “
Why does the author say “energy is extracted”?
Why not say: “the bird eats”, “the bird receives energy”?
You will say: “Well, it’s a biological scientific text,
passive constructions “. And you will be right.
But what about this example?
“The animal was given the opportunity to first get acquainted with the new smells
by sniffing and licking the demonstrator. “
Even the hare does not like this example, because it sounds ridiculous!
Why not say “the animal sniffed and licked”?
While many scientists say so: “the bear looks,
I do not know there, “cats-dogs” – here they wanted – “eat”.
But some scientist chooses this kind of construction.
Why, having in my head two [forms], active and passive,
one of the scientists chooses one, and someone else?
This happens because the verb, for example, the animal “sniffs”
expresses the idea of action in language, and all action presupposes
an active subject with consciousness, as we talked about, and will,
capable of goal-setting. The action is always purposeful.
And if we resort to philosophy to understand,
what is goal-setting, purposefulness,
then all philosophical books, like one, will talk about how,
that this is peculiar only to human activity, to man.
And only in one philosophical dictionary I got such a thing:
“Yes, it is peculiar to man, only him,
but the behavior of a hare running away from a wolf, like the behavior of a wolf catching a hare,
has all the signs of purposefulness. “
What do we get?
There are some fine philosophical concepts about consciousness, about action.
And the animal – by the way, is also in linguistics
built beautiful concepts of verb classification –
and animals in these all the slender concepts do not fit.
We can not determine the status of the animal in relation to us,
we do not know how to talk about them.
This is also all manifested in the language, here, look:
“Spontaneous ups are much less common in males,
who left their site. “
If we look at this phrase in a normal way, as this bird does,
then we will see what is written here: “males take off” and that’s it.
And we say “observed”.
That is, when we say the word “observed”
then I watch it, I’m a man, so it’s there.
One more example.
“Flies that have experienced thermal effects,
detect the level of formation of three-hour memory. “
I wanted to fly a fly here, and then I thought: suddenly someone will be disgusting.
(Laugh)
Although I like them, well, there will be a bumblebee.
So they “discover”. What does it mean to “discover”?
This show, make visible.
Again, to whom? To me, a man, an observer.
And more: “On the 9th-10th days, the rats become velvety
with a brown back and a darker muzzle. “
So the “velvet” is a biased description of the rats.
This is a sensation that a person experiences,
when he touches something that reminds him of velvet.
All this tells us that this man-centric,
anthropocentric point of view, one way or another determines our knowledge.
It is interesting that the human point of view, anthropocentric,
it can be that bad, a point of view of excellence.
Man thinks himself the crown of creation
not only in religion or literature, but also in science.
Look, science divides animals into higher and lower.
And guess from three times, to whom a man relates himself.
Evolution is conceived as a kind of staircase.
Evolution is not a ladder, it’s how we think it.
So at the top of this ladder we have Homo Sapiens, please.
Everything, that at the person, is considered true, exemplary, correct, standard.
Look, “Until recently,
that the animals are characterized not by the true, but only by the relative degree of abstraction. “
So, the person it turns out is true, but what kind of animal does it have?
Pseudo? Not real? The untrue?
In occasion of the point of view I will tell an anecdote now, though bearded, but all the same.
Sit two monkeys, and one another asks:
“Do you know what a conditioned reflex is?
Here I am now click on the button, and these pseudo-girls in white coats
will bring us bananas and sweets. “
(Laugh)
That is, the human point of view,
often, like anthropocentrism, is fatal.
And already at the end of writing my thesis I got another article
one Western researcher who became the missing pazzlik in my head.
This scholar wrote that linguists are responsible for public awareness
that language is not only a neutral descriptive tool,
but also an instrument, a heavy weapon that can cause harm.
This harm to the planet has already been inflicted.
Look, many species of animals have been destroyed,
others are on the verge of extinction, experiments are being conducted on animals,
animals are expelled from their habitats.
I, of course, do not say that this is the language that is to blame, no.
But the way we think, as we say, and our actions –
these are all links of the same chain.
Our old good friend Maslow said that the work of Lorentz
and some other researchers were therefore so wise,
so precise and so correct,
that these researchers loved animals, about which they spoke.
In general, all texts about animals in Russian can be divided into two large types.
The first are texts in which the position of the scientist does not come out of the language,
that is, some “wings of butterflies” are described, something like that,
and it is unclear how the scientist relates.
And the second group of texts are those in which this position can be understood,
and this is unconsciously manifested, simply by the way a person writes.
And about these second texts: this attitude can be
or as a passive object, soulless, lifeless,
or as a different form of life, when the scientist has empathy, perhaps,
love, some ironic attitude or ironic-joking.
The researcher of the chimpanzee, Jane Goodall, at the TED presentation,
that the science of those years, it was about 30 years ago, demanded from it that,
that she would call those chimpanzees she studied, by numbers:
first, second, tenth …
But she said: “I could not do this,
because they are not just numbers for me, they are not just objects. “
She gave them names, because she loved these animals.
She said: “giving numbers was more scientific.”
So my question is: maybe more scientifically – this is more humane?
Save our planet, make people’s lives better,
to know themselves and other forms of life, animals, the surrounding world –
this is the goal of science.
And do not go to the science of those who do not share these goals.
Well, do not go to work in a kindergarten nanny who does not like children.
Do not take up the zoological pen for people,
who do not see in animals another form of reality,
also worthy of respect.
Thank you.
(Applause)
”
Be First to Comment