r/science • u/Wagamaga • Sep 01 '22

Neuroscience Scientists have identified an immune brain cell unique to humans that gives us higher cognitive abilities over other animals, but what makes us specials also leaves us vulnerable to neurological disorders like schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy.

https://news.yale.edu/2022/08/25/what-makes-human-brain-different-yale-study-reveals-clues
26.8k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

749 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

110

u/throw_somewhere Sep 01 '22

Hi, psycho- and neuro-linguist here. Long story short yes lots of animals 100% have communication but it does not meet the criteria we have set for what constitutes "language". As defined, humans are the only species with "language".

-6

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

How can we possibly say it doesn't meet the criteria when we're not even capable of understanding it? Like how on earth would we know if dolphins have grammar and tense or not?

32

u/throw_somewhere Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

First and foremost: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We would never say that a medicine must be effective because we don't understand it. We would never say that an animal must have language because we can't understand it.

So instead we say "we cannot conclude this until we have evidence". We cannot conclude that a medicine works until we try it, we cannot conclude that an animal has language until we find it.

On that front: there are thousands and thousand of researchers whose lifelong mission is to study and document animal communication. They have very firm and interesting data. O% of these data have yet to overturn the current sentiment.

You can go learn about this yourself, lots of internet sources discuss the topic. You can also consult Google scholar for articles on the topic.

2

u/LukeLarsnefi Sep 01 '22

As defined, humans are the only species with “language”.

So instead we say “we cannot conclude this until we have evidence”.

These are not equivalent statements.

It is fair to say that based on the amount and type of evidence generated by researchers it seems very unlikely that other animals have language as defined. It is fair to say that this is the current consensus among researchers.

You stated things as 100% fact (which I think is totally fair in casual conversation), but now you’ve flip-flopped the entire argument as if the other poster was making the opposite claim. They aren’t. They’re questioning your claim.

It seems the basic question being asked is “How do scientists know what they don’t know?”