Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:35:48.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can a restrictive definition lead to biases and tautologies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2007

Luc-Alain Giraldeau
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada; [email protected]@uqam.ca
Louis Lefebvre
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, H3A 1B1, Canada. [email protected]
Julie Morand-Ferron
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada; [email protected]@uqam.ca

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
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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. (1943) A type of insight learning in birds. British Birds 37:2931.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