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