Anthropocentric Thinking

Anthropocentric Thinking Is The Tendency To Reason About Unfamiliar Biological Species Or Processes By Analogy To Humans

This confirms and expands the depth of the alleged biopsychological roots of mental anthropomorphism and lays the foundation for studying the presence of anthropomorphism in the philosophy of biology and in the doctrine of evolution, taking into account the mosaic of three hyperactive psychological tendencies. [Sources: 6]

Three of the cognitive structures-teleological thinking, essentialist thinking, and human-centered thinking-are particularly important for understanding common problems and misunderstandings in biology courses. At the same time, cognitive and developmental psychologists described the intuitive concept systems that humans use to reason about biology-teleology, essentialism, and human-centered thinking. We hypothesize that apparently unrelated biological illusions may have common roots in these intuitive cognitive models called cognitive structures. To evaluate the spontaneous use of teleological thinking, essentialist thinking, and anthropocentric thinking in biological scientific reasoning, we constructed 12 misunderstanding statements. [Sources: 3, 4]

Their focus on protecting wild plants and animals and preserving vital parts of species and habitats (1 | -3) included an emphasis on preserving natural resources for humanity (cover of Biological Conservation, Vol. Most natural scientists who followed Darwin) turned to the opposite direction, moving away from humans to other species with a longer evolutionary history and more accessible biological structures, not because of lack of interest, but as a result of the belief that only humans are capable of thinking. [Sources: 0, 5, 7]

First, psychological processes of any kind can be realized only in a biological system, and the mind can only be secreted by the brain. Many scientists think about this, but we know little about how the mind works. How language is processed or how learning works – we know little – consciousness or search for memory, not much. [Sources: 2, 7]

The cognitive explanation we propose may be the basis of these misunderstandings and is called human-centered thinking; it is just a tendency to reason about unknown biological processes or species in a way similar to humans. The second component of anthropocentric thinking is the tendency to reason about unfamiliar biological species or processes by analogy with humans. [Sources: 3, 4]

1) a tendency to view humans as unique and biologically unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom, and 2) a tendency to reason about other organisms by analogy with humans. In these examples, anthropocentric thinking can lead to a distortion of the role of a person in the biological world, an over-attribution of human (or animal) functions to different organisms (for example, plants), or the personification of physiological processes. Conversely, thinking about non-human species by analogy with humans can also lead to children underestimating the biological properties of species that are very different from humans. [Sources: 3, 4]

In the opposite direction, sociobiology erroneously assumes that if practices in human culture are similar to the behavioral patterns of other species, then if they are (more or less) similar, they are more likely to be explained biologically. Less) is common in humans. A simpler explanation may have other advantages, such as easier to understand or describe, but since animal behavior is the result of natural selection, not the result of an intelligent design process that always provides the best solution, there is no reason to believe that it may be caused by Caused by a simpler process (Mikhalevich, Powell, Logan, 2017). Although the general reasoning model that constitutes psychological anthropomorphism is usually defined as teleological reasoning, that is, thinking that produces an explanatory style that deals with goals, goals, and causes (for example, Mahner and Bunge, 1997; Broaddus, unpublished; Engvild, 2015), and It does not necessarily mean that the underlying biological, cognitive, and evolutionary processes must be unified. [Sources: 0, 6, 7]

This hypothesis may derive from a cognitive concept known as essentialist thinking. When you look at the misconceptions listed at the beginning of this section through the prism of anthropocentric thinking, things like “worry” and “death” are harmful to humans and therefore easily viewed as inevitably harmful to a biological system or organism. [Sources: 4]

The emphasis on “intelligent domestication” demanded by new conservation science is overlooked because even in “domesticated” ecosystems, most of the species present are wild (87), and the processes that support these systems are almost entirely controlled by humans. This respect for the wilderness itself, wherever it may be, underlines the need for efforts to save what is left of the wilderness, parts of the world where human goals are not the primary driving forces and which are often necessary for the conservation of native species. with narrow ranges (94). [Sources: 5]

In this way, the concept of respect for nature and natural sites can act as an open horizon that can be characterized in different contexts and different audiences and cultures to form new relationships with nature that are sustainable for both people and others. [Sources: 5]

We will see that, moving from one of these theories to another, the sphere of moral values ​​extends from people to animals, then to plants, and then to ecosystems. Animal husbandry research is another example of value accusations, given that a fascination with human culture is the driving force, and an attempt to map the cognitive differences between our own monkey species and other monkey species that may explain the origin of our uniqueness. Since non-human animals share some biological and psychological characteristics with humans, and we share communities, land, and other resources, the consideration of non-human animals can greatly contribute to our philosophical endeavors. [Sources: 0, 1]

If, as Wilson and others have argued, “homo sapiens is a common animal,” then there is much to be learned by viewing human experience as part of a broader biological continuum. In biology, humans are a familiar and approachable biological type and therefore are a very tempting source of knowledge that is often misapplied to non-human living things. Those of us who stick to “copy of humans” in AI take our time to think about what humans can do. [Sources: 2, 4, 7]

On the other hand, biological and technological processes will be viewed as similar systems that respond to certain constraints and are likely to have similar basic characteristics. Design, underlying purpose and belief positions benefit biology by providing a cognitive foundation, expressing a powerful explanatory system, facilitating functional generalization, promoting new research questions and results, allowing metaphorical / analogical thinking, and didactically explaining in a concise manner. Ideally, this approach should be developed for teleological thinking in biology. In short, for Norton’s vision to be viable, we need to know how far in the future we need to extend our commitment to the human species and whether we are psychologically capable of doing so. [Sources: 1, 6, 7]

It is wrong to harm the environment through pollution or destruction of habitats because of the damage it is doing to our species that goes beyond the damage it is doing to individuals right now. According to him, environmentalists believe that policies that serve the interests of all mankind in general and in the long term will also serve the interests of nature, and vice versa. However, anthropocentric collectivism goes beyond the human personality and believes that any moral responsibility to the environment rests solely on the interests of the human species as a whole, especially for future generations of people. Anthropocentrism can lean towards the environment, making large sacrifices, and biocentrism towards people who make sacrifices. [Sources: 1]

— Slimane Zouggari


##### Sources #####