Sam Bostaph wrote:`
> I think this whole discussion would benefit with 
> a complete absence of  "anthropomorphizing."  In THE 
> DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE  IT MAKES, Mortimer 
> Adler pointed out quite a few decades ago that the  human 
> capacity for conceptual thought is not shared with other 
> animals  and is the distinctive mark of a human being.  
> All of the outer  manifestations of animal behavior do not 
> constitute a basis for using  words that designate human 
> acts for other animal acts. 

Are you saying we should rely on Adler (Adler?!) to 
pronounce on such things rather than attend to the 
accumulated scientific evidence?  Or are you simply playing 
games with the word "capacity" in order to enforce the 
economist's prejudice that I "pointed out"?  Are you 
suggesting we should divide our vocabulary like this:

        eat(h) - human eating
        eat(a) - other animal eating
        mate(h) - human mating
        mate(a) - other animal mating
        exhibit anger and attack(h) - human fighting
        exhibit anger and attack(a) - animal fighting
        etc.?

Surely you are not asserting that the study of animal 
behavior has shed no light on human behavior?  Or are you?

Aside from the science, ordinary experience proves that man 
is more like chimp than a god.  In contrast, homo economicus   
is often presented as more of a god than a chimp.  That is 
the worse category error.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac