Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2025

Abstract

Taxonomist Roy Crowson identified a fundamental difference among sciences. What he called “natural history” is exemplified by classical biology; it begins by observing, describing and classifying phenomena in the real world, then seeks patterns and concepts that help to synthesize and explain the observations, and proceeds to measurement and experimentation grounded in that framework. What he called “natural philosophy” is exemplified by classical physics; it postulates fundamental principles or concepts that are thought to apply universally, and the research proceeds more directly to measurement and experimentation directed at these principles or concepts. The study of animal behaviour has been influenced by both paradigms. The early ethologists (and now many zoologists) observed, described and classified the natural behaviour of various species and developed explanatory models based on the observations. Behavioural psychologists, in contrast, tended to focus on learning and motivation, sought laws or postulated constructs that were thought to apply universally, and then used simple measurements of artificial actions, usually with laboratory rodents, to develop laws or test theories. Both paradigms have been applied to the study of social behaviour and affective states, and have led to very different methods. Following the natural history paradigm, scientists have observed, described and classified how individuals interact with each other, how free-living groups of animals are organized, and have looked for evidence of affective states underlying the behaviour; they then developed concepts (facultative siblicide, matriarchy, separation distress) and tested hypotheses that helped make sense of the observations. Following the natural philosophy paradigm, other scientists postulated general concepts or constructs (aggression, dominance, emotionality) that were presumed to apply universally, and then used simple, often contrived, measurements to better understand them. The influence of the paradigms can be seen in applied studies of animal welfare and in the use of “animal models” of human mental and emotional conditions. I argue that scientists need to decide critically which paradigm to follow at a given point in their research, paying particular attention to (1) whether the measurement methods are valid, especially when they were not designed based on the natural behaviour of the species, (2) whether the concepts invoked are the most useful for the issue at hand, and (3) whether and when the concepts and findings can truly be generalized across species.

Download

Share

COinS