|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Animal rights, behavioural scientists
I am wondering if any behavioural scientists would be interested in helping the scientific aspects of animal rights. The article overly emphasis the political and ethical aspects of animal rights. Scientific content is under represented. Although there are several scientific journals on the topic, such as those in anthrozoology. I proposed following relevant additions to the articles
- 1) more surveys of different group's opinions of animal rights issues.
- 2) neurological study of inter-species compassion. There are major studies on this, see Mirror neuron.
- 3) evolutionary study of altruist behaviours in humans. Altruist behaviours are not all about humans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations
- 4) other great apes , humans' closest living relatives, and their similarity with humans. see Great ape personhood
The section "Difference between behavioural sciences and social sciences" sets social sciences apart from behavioural sciences, and lists Anthropology as an example of the former. In the subsequent section "Categories of behavioural sciences", Anthropology is listed as part of the sub-category of the Behavioural Science called Communication Sciences. Contradiction? Zalmoxe (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The Behavioural sciences#Behavioural sciences as integrative sciences section seems dubious to me. There are no sources, and some of the choices for where to include fields and how to categorize them appear dubious. Is there any supporting evidence for it? DarwinPeacock (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science
There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
What about Biology?
I was wondering why biology or specific sub-fields in biology, are not ranked under behavioral sciences? In a broader sense biology studies structure and behavior, right? For example, here are some excerpts from the Biology Wiki page,
"Cell biology studies the structural and physiological properties of cells, including their behaviors, interactions, and environment." "The theme of "structure to function" is central to biology" "Physiology studies how for example nervous, immune, endocrine, respiratory, and circulatory systems, function and interact. The study of these systems is shared with medically oriented disciplines such as neurology and immunology."
Here is the definition of 'behavior' from the Wiki page on Behavior,
"Behavior or behaviour (see American and British spelling differences) refers to the actions and mannerisms made by organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with their environment,..."
This would mean any science that studies "actions and mannerisms made by organisms", would be a behavioral science. Would be pleased if you guys consider that a significant portion of biology falls under behavioral science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is this page using the British spelling instead of the American spelling? All of the ref books don't use the "u", and likewise with behavior and human behavior (but not for consumer behaviour). If it is important, surely it's worth including in the article, no? If it's not, we should change it back to its common name and spelling. czar · · 17:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi czar · ·! Articles in Wikipedia can be either written using the English spelling or the American one - doesn't matter which one as long as it is the same throughout the article. As can be seen from the title of this article, this very article uses English spelling. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)