Article contents
Can a restrictive definition lead to biases and tautologies?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2007
Abstract
We argue that the operational definition proposed by Ramsey et al. does not represent a significant improvement for students of innovation, because it is so restrictive that it might actually prevent the testing of hypotheses on the relationships between innovation, ecology, evolution, culture, and intelligence. To avoid tautological thinking, we need to use an operational definition that is taxonomically unbiased and neutral with respect to the hypotheses to be tested.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007
References
Kummer, H. & Goodall, J. (1985) Conditions of innovative behaviour in primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 308:203–14.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. (1956) Records of the development of unusual and original feeding methods by wild passerine birds. British Birds 49:389–95.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by