CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Philosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Against Morgan’s Canon

Fitzpatrick, Simon·2017·The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Animal Minds
DOI 10.4324/9781315742250-43
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conwy Lloyd Morgan&s;s Canon remains widely accepted primarily because it is seen as a bulwark against a natural bias of human beings towards explaining animal behavior in terms of sophisticated, human-like cognitive capacities, when the relevant behavior might be the product of less sophisticated causes. The chapter distinguishes four formulations of the Canon that one can find explicitly or implicitly in the literature. They are the prohibitive canon, the conservative canon, the restraining canon and the cautionary canon. The categorical anti-cognitivism embodied in the Prohibitive Canon has received much criticism. The logic thought to motivate Morgan&s;s Canon actually runs against the Conservative Canon. If the problem Karin D&s;Arcy and other advocates of the Canon are concerned with is researchers endorsing explanations of animal behavior without due attention being paid to alternatives, we can see that the asymmetry built into the Restraining Canon is quite inappropriate as a response.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9781315742250-43

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Morgan’s key statement of the Canon can be found in C. L. Morgan , An Introduction to Comparative Psychology (London: Walter Scott, 1894), which is widely cited but rarely read. It provides a fascinating insight into the philosophical and methodological problems facing early comparative psychologists. R. Boakes , From Darwin to Behaviorism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), and G. Radick , The Simian Tongue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), are useful guides to Morgan’s life and work and the historical context from which Morgan’s Canon emerged. S. Shettleworth , Fundamentals of Comparative Cognition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), and K. Andrews , The Animal Mind (New York: Routledge, 2015), provide accessible introductions to current debates over the methodological problems of comparative psychology and the role accorded to Morgan’s Canon in dealing with them.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fitzpatrick, S.
Corresponding author
Fitzpatrick, Simon
ORCID
Fitzpatrick, Simon
Venue
The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Animal Minds
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2017-07-06
Pages
437-447
DOI
10.4324/9781315742250-43
OpenAlex
W4240120337
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.27
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
animal cognition, cognitive biases, alternative explanations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review