Can Rats Reason?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Since at least the mid-1980s claims have been made for rationality in rats. For example, that rats are capable of inferential reasoning (Blaisdell, Sawa, Leising, & Waldmann, 2006; Bunsey & Eichenbaum, 1996), or that they can make adaptive decisions about future behavior (Foote & Crystal, 2007), or that they are capable of knowledge in propositional-like form (Dickinson, 1985). The stakes are rather high, because these capacities imply concept possession and on some views (e.g., Rödl, 2007; Savanah, 2012) rationality indicates self-consciousness. I evaluate the case for rat rationality by analyzing 5 key research paradigms: spatial navigation, metacognition, transitive inference, causal reasoning, and goal orientation. I conclude that the observed behaviors need not imply rationality by the subjects. Rather, the behavior can be accounted for by noncognitive processes such as hard-wired species typical predispositions or associative learning or (nonconceptual) affordance detection. These mechanisms do not necessarily require or implicate the capacity for rationality. As such there is as yet insufficient evidence that rats can reason. I end by proposing the ‘Staircase Test,’ an experiment designed to provide convincing evidence of rationality in rats.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
STECRR
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-02-15
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Self-Consciousness.Rödl, Sebastian
Belief.Schwitzgebel, Eric

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-02-15

Total views
108 ( #32,042 of 50,320 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #36,313 of 50,320 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.