Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnonCoward42 | Hacker News Reader

> Why do cats knead?

> So why do cats knead? Although the reason is uncertain, the most likely explanation is that it is a leftover behavior from kittenhood, Susan Hazel, an associate professor of animal behavior, welfare and ethics at the University of Adelaide in Australia, told Live Science. During nursing, a kitten rhythmically treads its paws on the mother's body to stimulate the flow of milk.

The answer is speculation. Yeah, that would be my guess too, but do we really need "science" for that? (and by science I mean some authority figure that apparently has a title)

This looks much more like what TV sells us as "the science".

View on HN

For it to be science we need a way to do an experiment or to make a comparison. Perhaps one could be; If it's believed to be related to nursing, then perhaps we need to know if kittens abandoned early on and hand fed also knead?

We don’t know in adults, kittens stimulate milk production from it is the answer from science, that’s not speculation.

Adults continuing the behavior from kitten hood is speculation not a scientific consensus.

> Adults continuing the behavior from kitten hood is speculation not a scientific consensus.

There is scientific consensus. All animals do continue on early behaviors. Kneading is partially learning (nurture) and partly instinct (nature).

Speculating there is a specific reason beyond these knowns, contains a baseless assumption.

All animals continue some early behaviors but not all early behaviors are maintained by all animals.

The default is thus “we don’t know” instead of inferences from known data.

I dont know what you mean by 'default'. Inference and deduction is widely used across behavioralism, primarily because it has yielded useful models. I see no reason that it should be discounted, as a valid approach, in pursuit of an absolute truth by some other standard.

Because if inferences and deduction where enough people wouldn’t bother with experiments.

The default must be “we don’t know” to avoid the stagnation like 10 million philosophy books which don’t actually advance anything. Thus the article’s "I think there is… because you can follow “We don’t know, …” with a great deal of personal supposition but that’s all it is.

> Because if inferences and deduction where enough people wouldn’t bother with experiments.

Yet humans do, well beyond experimental evidence. Notably theoretical insert science. This is not directly relevant, but interesting to think about. I really appreciated Feynman's distinction between Physics and Mathematics.

We don't know if humans become addicted to alcohol due to ingestion or genetic predisposition, as it could be invisible fairies that live in the subatomic spaces of alcohol picking their favorites.

Suffice to say, what you and I are arguing for is no more truth than any other model of reality that provides the same answers. I don't see why requiring more specific experimental evidence is more scientific.

> I don’t see why requiring more specific experimental evidence is more scientific.

Even if you don’t understand why there’s plenty of examples showing this is how “theoretical sciences” operate.

Prior to discovering the Higgs Boson the underlying verbiage was all some variation on “we don’t know, but…” Only after the experiment is that default changed.

The Higgs is a great example because there were several competing theories suggesting various energies for the particle most of which failed when actual data showed up. Which you always get for such open questions, thus the lack of consensus and the default “we don’t know.”

It's not science, it's speculation from someone with experience in the field. I don't think this was sold as a scientific conclusion

I know this is naive, but I still reflexively expect content from publications with “science” in their name to be predominantly scientific for a few moments before I remember where I live.

"Why" cannot possibly be science; it is rather teleology and the answer is ultimately "because" (phrased as "because god" if you want to stir up shit).

I suspect that might be right. Just like parrots will "groom" a person's hair like they were feathers.

I hope nobody decide to approve grant for scientific research on that, because it will involve cutting limbs, opening skulls and other types of vivisections that scientists love so much. Result also be very far from certainty with some numbers and experiments conditions. But of course it will produce several phds and may be even whole professor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com