Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Hey everybody, I just want to poll everybody for a homework assignment (topic our choice). It is Saturday morning, and you just turned off the tv due to nothing being on. The phone rings, and it's your friend claiming that he just bought a talking fish. You can't go over to their house and see for yourself, but certainly your experience in life has not come across any talking fish. You haven't examined every species of fish, especially not every fish, but your personal experience and knowledge of facts compels you to say otherwise. Even if you went over to the house, and it talked, you would suspect trickery or a crock. Do you believe in the truth of the talking fish that your friend claims to have bought?Now after you have said either answer, what if you went over to his house and saw that it talked, and still skeptical you find that many other fish are talking, truthful people claim they can talk as well, scientists publish research papers that have carefully researched and tested the talking fish, and all across the world newspaper headlines read 'Famous Talking Fish!'. Do you believe in the truth of the talking fish that your friend claims to have bought?Thanks for your replies, this is for my Psychology research paper. :)
Anathema Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 I say no, and would believe I was hallucinating.Edit: no on both. Frankly because I don't see how fish could speak. They don't have vocal cords, and their brains are to small to comprehend a sophisticated concept such as language, unless you'd be talking about whales (and they're not even fishes :) )
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 No to both? Gotta get exact information :) And could you please post why, just for the heck of it? I'm interested in why as well. Ah this is all so interesting! :D
emprworm Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 regards to part one: The answer is not initially. Since I have seen no prior evidence to a talking fish, never heard of any discovery of one, I would be, by default, skeptical of such a claim. If my friend had one in a tank that he BOUGHT, then there suddenly exists some questions:#1) If he BOUGHT this fish, then that means the store he bought it from would know of it. They would know the species of the fish, and as thus, a fish of this nature would be abundantly documented and well known by society. But since I have never heard anything about it before, it is more rational to assume a trick. I have seen david copperfield turn "people in to animals" so I empirically know that illusions of this magnitude are completely plausible. Remember that when you first see this fish, it is in your FRIENDS HOME- in your FRIENDS TANK- the entire environment you are in is 100% manipulable and alterable by your friend. MORE EVIDENCE would be required for me to believe:#1) I would need to hear the fish talk in an environment that I CONTROL.#2) I would need to know the location of the store it was purchased from#1 being most important.To answer the second part of your question, I would be inclined to believe if I read first hand accounts of reputable scientific sources. What a newspaper says means nothing to me. BEFORE I believed it however, I would look to see if there were any credible scientific opinions AGAINST the fish. It is not just enough to read the PRO arguments without checking to see if there is *also* credible scientific opinion that claims otherwise.
Andrew Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 i say no, to talking fishreason? ive never seen a fish talk beforei say yes, once scientists say yes. reason? its been proven
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Ah jeez here we go with semantics ;) The store doesn't know about it, I don't want to explain why, because this was suppose to be a simple story! Bleh. And there were scientific research papers, including studies of the talking fish that confirm its existence according to the many scientists (99% I would say, because we all know there are some who have to be stubborn ;)) Hope this clears it up for you. Thanks empr, earth, and andrew :) So far so good as far as data amount!
Gobalopper Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Are these fish like the ones in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels? :)
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Can't say for sure, I haven't read that yet :) But I plan to! Oh boy here comes the stoning...
Gobalopper Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 If the fish can translate what other people are saying and can live in my ear then yes I believe it. :D
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Ok ok enough with being OT :P I need this data for my project, so if you two would be so kind as to answer.. :D
Gobalopper Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 I thought I did? I would only believe it if the fish could translate for me! Ok ok. :)No I wouldn't believe it unless this fish had some highly advanced brian which would probably not make it a fish anymore. Also fish don't exactly have the makeup to be able to talk, vocal cords etc, to begin with do they?
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Well whatever way the fish finds a way to talk, scientists have studied it and tested it and confirmed it and has been accepted among the scientific community to the highest majority. I'll log that data :) Thanks, and if you decide to change it due to what I said I'll change the data when you post it.Edit: The scientists confirm that they do talk, but they don't know how. That makes sense for now. ;)
Gobalopper Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 I would say is my answer is that a fish that can talk is no longer a fish. :)
nemafakei Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 I would definitely say that the above replies would do well for a psychology paper...Anyway...It depends on the personality of the friend. I might then believe that the friend thinks the fish is talking, but still guess that they've left the radio on or something.Then, having seen and heard the fish, I would take it home, leave it for a day, then ask others to test whether it was talking (ensuring a non-suggestive test, of course). If the scientific papers prove the capacity for ichthuophemism, and suggest a reason for the fish not having already spoken, then I would be inclined to agree that the fish speak. I would promptly find out how intelligent they were.
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Ok, so that's a no and then no for gob, and no and then yes for nema? IM me if this is wrong, or just post it; also to clear up ALL confusion or just the itch for asking a question about it, the scientists have confirmed the existence of the talking fish, but the details on how it is talking is debated upon, some say aliens some say mutant fish some say we are all the fish and they are human, so you know about that now.
nemafakei Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Have the scientists found vocal chords, or some mechanism by which they may talk - if not, I am inclined to think it a problem with humans.
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Ok this semantic stuff is really straying away from the objective at hand ;) Just know that it is accepted among most scientists that it can talk, and the details on how it talks is being debated upon. But it does talk! For crying out loud lol.
emprworm Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 "I would say is my answer is that a fish that can talk is no longer a fish" I agree fully. Talking requires specific organs that are not part of the established definition of the term "fish". It would be a new species. Parrots can talk, so talking animals would not be beyond my capacity to believe, except that it would not really be a "fish."
Andrew Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 "I would say is my answer is that a fish that can talk is no longer a fish" I agree fully. Talking requires specific organs that are not part of the established definition of the term "fish". It would be a new species. Parrots can talk, so talking animals would not be beyond my capacity to believe, except that it would not really be a "fish."so does that mean you dont beleive that a parrot is a bird? it would be a different type of fish, but still under the fish species or whatever......i dont know what level we are talking about. :-
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Oh c'mon guys, it's just a talking fish, let's not get into specifics and semanticS! Just answer the friggin' questions don't go into discussions on stuff like that sheesh. It's just a simple poll, for a paper in Psych.
emprworm Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 no, Acriku, The point of the question is to basically probe us as to what it would take for us to believe in such a creature. These are not semantics, but represent truly what it would take for me to believe. You cannot say "what would it take for you to believe...but you can't consider this...and that...and this..."If the poll is so constricting that it does not allow for one to answer honestly, then it is a biased poll and not valid to begin with.
Acriku Posted January 8, 2003 Author Posted January 8, 2003 Oh jeez...What I put for the first question: With what I gave you in the first paragraph, would you believe in the talking fish? With what I gave you in the second paragraph, would you believe in the talking fish? It is a simple poll to see what limits belief.
emprworm Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 what you put in the first paragraph was "Even if you went over to the house, and it talked, you would suspect trickery or a crock. " So I guess my mind was already made up :)Answer: nopeSecond Paragraph: unknown. probably, but it depends upon the counter evidence, which was never mentioned. if none exists, then yes.and, it is not really a simple poll. It is a swayed CNN-style poll- what is called in philosophy as "loaded" - all IMHO of course ;D
Acriku Posted January 9, 2003 Author Posted January 9, 2003 Ok I have written my research report, thanks for everyone who participated :D I owe you guys.
Recommended Posts