The yellow rat snake that may enjoy some human contact.

[Ourobouros]

And please don't bring up plants because they lack the physiology to be relevant here

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

As soon as I read "From Wikipedia" I knew your argument is garbage. Why may you ask? Because Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE at ANYTIME. It's not a real source for information.

I suggest you read the FAQ on Wikipedia before you go bashing it....

Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Cory

Also, I'd like to clarify something. When I suggested that the behaviour of reaching up with its body toward my hand might indicate that Lily the yellow rat snake may enjoy a type of touch I never suggested that Lily was engaged in any moral decision-making exercise. Instead, I assume that snakes can feel both pleasure and pain and can act with both attraction and aversion. As a human caring for animals, I want to best provide for their needs. Some snakes do exhibit some social tendencies such as mating, group denning, and following each other's pheromone trails when exiting their wintering dens for the summer. I am certain that I am unable to provide the exact natural environment for this snake but would like to make its life as good and comfortable as possible. If it turns out that the snake's behaviours were social cues then I would like to know what they mean, hence this request for interpretations. I am more than certain that the snake doesn't "love" anything but that doesn't mean that I do not have an obligation as a good pet steward to try to provide for the animal's needs. That's the entire gist of my request.

Pleasure, pain, fear and aggression are forms of primitive emotion. And although science shows snakes lack the cerebral capacity for love and anger in the way we do, they do agree that they can react favorably or unfavorably towards us based on certain stimuli. Your animals are more likely to favor you if you treat them well and visa versa with negative treatment. But animals are individuals and not all respond the same way in the same situations.

I totally get what you're saying here. This thread has unfortunately transformed into a debate of definitions referenced rather than a discussion of similar experiences...

[DOBERMAN]

Yes Aaron , Wikipedia doesn't work the way you have described. It is not trash. That is what was said years ago when they first came out and were finding their way. It's actually now a very concise summarization of information. Go do independent research on the topic "confirmation bias" with various different "reputable" sources and you will find that the wording and structure of the definition in Wikipedia actually is probably the most up to date, relevant and practical definition. As is with most topics on that site. Nowadays it is the "experts" that contribute and write up on the topics found within Wikipedia. Irony that you are exhibiting the symptoms of the exact topic that I have referenced

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by DOBERMAN

Yes Aaron , Wikipedia doesn't work the way you have described. It is not trash. That is what was said years ago when they first came out and were finding their way. It's actually now a very concise summarization of information. Go do independent research on the topic "confirmation bias" with various different "reputable" sources and you will find that the wording and structure of the definition in Wikipedia actually is probably the most up to date, relevant and practical definition. As is with most topics on that site. Nowadays it is the "experts" that contribute and write up on the topics found within Wikipedia. Irony that you are exhibiting the symptoms of the exact topic that I have referenced

The only thing that is ironic is that you are falsely accusing people of suffering from confirmation bias. I don't care whether or not your source for the definition of the word is valid. The fact is, I never actually took a side in this debate and yet you wrote an essay about me suffering from confirmation bias. Therefore your argument for using Wikipedia as a source has no merit to begin with.

You just like to judge and label people to justify your arguments. Most of those times your judgements are wrong.

[Ourobouros]

V_______________________v

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

I suggest you read the FAQ on Wikipedia before you go bashing it....

Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's nice...

Maybe it's changed, but last I heard that universities would NOT allow it as a credible source when you hand in a paper. If this is no longer true, prove it to me.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Cory

Would you be so kind as to substantiate your claim with scientific evidence? As well, how would you interpret the two snake behaviours that I outlined at the very beginning of this thread?

Just because I'm not ready to go to bed yet I'll humour you.

Here are the parts from the first post. I have not seen these actions in person so it's a little tougher to describe the behaviour off in the information given. I'll try though.

1. he will often arch his back up toward my finger. I can slowly pull it away about an inch (2.5 cm) and he will follow with his arched back. I have considered that this may be a negative reaction intended to push me away but his normal reaction to unwanted stimuli is to retreat into his 'burrow' made from PVC piping. If this is a negative response then it is an unusual one compared to all the other times he doesn't like something and wants to get away.

He doesn't want you touching him. It's a defense a lot of snakes use. They "throw" or "push" their body towards what they don't like near it instead of biting. They do have times where they are less tolerant of us and will react differently so I wouldn't say it's something simply because he didn't flee. Lots of animals sit still in hope the predator doesn't see them. Maybe he's making himself look bigger to "shoo" you away?

2. he sometimes begin moving in a very jerky fashion, with sudden and repeated twitchy, even convulsive motions. He maintains his interest in the touch and tends to not recoil when it investigates and realizes that the source is human. Once he even slid two thirds of his body off of his perch and onto my hand.

This would simply be breeding behaviour to me. Regardless of what you're doing or your hand that's what it seems like. Doesn't matter if he ended up in your hand or not. Snakes are pretty dull, he easily could have thought your hand was a warm branch and decided to move onto it. Nothing to do with YOU or emotions.

Lastly, it's already been stated reptiles don't have the limbic system to have emotions. If you'd like some sources brought to you I think you would be the one to need to bring them to us as well. You have brought anecdotes and conjecture.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by DOBERMAN

Yes Aaron , Wikipedia doesn't work the way you have described. It is not trash. That is what was said years ago when they first came out and were finding their way. It's actually now a very concise summarization of information.

Just to add on this, are you sure you know what the word concise means? If you've ever read a wikipedia article you'd know it's far from concise.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

That's nice...

Maybe it's changed, but last I heard that universities wouldn't allow it as a credible source when you hand in a paper. If this is no longer true, prove it to me.

Well universities also tell you to use multiple sources and not put all your eggs in one basket. But appealing to authority does nothing to downplay Wikipedia's accuracy. Just because it's not one of the officially "trusted" resources does not render it useless. In fact, many articles include citations from sources that universities would approve. Wikipedia simply condenses many various sources cited into one place and saves time.

Now, I trust you've read through the entire FAQ prior to asking me to prove an irrelevant point? Because the negative connotations linked to Wikipedia's reliability isn't stopping you from taking 5 minutes to Google search other sources on the discussion to check others' information before you say they're wrong.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by mikoh4792

Just to add on this, are you sure you know what the word concise means? If you've ever read a wikipedia article you'd it's far from concise.

I'm not agreeing with what you were accused of but Wikipedia has actually been very useful and very accurate for my own research. If there is missing information or anything in an article that cannot be validated with citations there will be an advisory warning the reader...

However it is always good practice to review multiple resources for accuracy.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

I'm not agreeing with what you were accused of but Wikipedia has actually been very useful and very accurate for my own research. If there is missing information or anything in an article that cannot be validated with citations there will be an advisory warning the reader...

However it is always good practice to review multiple resources for accuracy.

I know but I never doubted wikipedia as a good source of information. I'm just negating Doberman's assertion that the articles are concise. I think he's just trying to sound smart but I guess he slipped up on that.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

Well universities also tell you to use multiple sources and not put all your eggs in one basket. But appealing to authority does nothing to downplay Wikipedia's accuracy. Just because it's not one of the officially "trusted" resources does not render it useless. In fact, many articles include citations from sources that universities would approve. Wikipedia simply condenses many various sources cited into one place and saves time.

Now, I trust you've read through the entire FAQ prior to asking me to prove an irrelevant point? Because the negative connotations linked to Wikipedia's reliability isn't stopping you from taking 5 minutes to Google search other sources on the discussion to check others' information before you say they're wrong.

Actually, I've got plenty to read through. I've made an entire thread upon this whole thread's topic. Go look for it. I'm still sorting through the material I gathered when I started that, mostly because I have been lazy and haven't put a lot of time into it.

I won't argue about Wiki anymore because it's pointless.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Actually, I've got plenty to read through. I've made an entire thread upon this whole thread's topic. Go look for it. I'm still sorting through the material I gathered when I started that, mostly because I have been lazy and haven't put a lot of time into it.

I won't argue about Wiki anymore because it's pointless.

Go look for it? And waste more of my time? Lol I'm happy it's over

[MDT]

Dear God...please make the madness stop.....