At 6:16 PM -0500 8/15/07, Michael Scoles wrote: >Tim is right. In discussing ethical issues regarding animal >research, we preach that simulations imply an understanding of the >animal, which we don't really have. So, why do we suggest that they >act as "researchers" with a simulation? Students will discover that >a real animal (mouse, rat, pigeon, dog, or human) doesn't behave >exactly like their textbook says.
'Sniffy' definitely does not behave like real rat, but there are other simulations that are better, such as CyberRat <http://www.psych-ai.com/cyberratnet_folder/welcome.html>. All simulations are models, and as such are limited in the range of behaviors and situations modeled, but based on ten years of students using both live rats and CyberRat (and comparing the two), CyberRat is very realistic. -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
