🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9106272202.AA12658@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu>
     gheller@YODA.EECS.WSU.EDU (Geoffrey Heller - CS216) writes:

>I am curious to know if the methods of ethologists have attained any level
>of credibility in recent scientific works pertaining to biology.  Note that
>I am not referring to anthropomorphism, but ethology.  

Not having read the book that lead you to ask this, I'm not sure where
your question is coming from.  There are journals with the word
ethology in them, and in fact there is a journal just called ethology.
My understanding is that ethology as a word merely means the study of
an animal's behavior in it's natural environment (rather than say in a
skinner box :)  There are quite a number of scientists involved in
such studies, and there is even a sub-specialty called neuroethology
where people try to understand how the nervous system of an organism
is built to allow it to lead its natural life.

As for some of the original ethologists, Tinbergen and Lorentz (sp?)
are considered very highly (quasi-gods :).  Some of their students
(e.g. Walter Heilegenberg of electric fish fame--I believe he's one of
the editors of the Journal of Comparative Physiology) are *quite*
highly respected.

> - Geoffrey Heller
>   gheller@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu

Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)