On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:41:23 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>
>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>their published findings.
>
>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>nociception,

Which he failed to point out. He merely asserted that there had
been a confusion between nociception and genuine pain, but
evidence shows there was no confusion between the two at all.
The tests were made to establish;

(i) whether fish possess the necessary neuro-anatomy
for pain perception,
(ii) if these receptors were present whether they reacted
to noxious stimulation
(iii) whether noxious stimulation generated behavioural
responses that were more than simple reflexive reactions
to the stimulus.

And concludes;

By determining that fish have the same types of nociceptors
as other vertebrates (A-delta and C fibres), that these respond
to noxious stimulation, and that the motivation and general
behaviour of fish are adversely affected by such stimulation
would appear to provide compelling evidence that fish can
perceive and react to noxious stimuli. Whether this is evidence
that fish have the capacity to experience pain and suffering is
a harder question to resolve because to determine this it is
necessary to understand the cognitive capacities of fish. Work
is now being directed at this, and the results to date suggest that
some species of fish are capable of quite complex cognitive
processing. However, it is important to appreciate that the
simpler brain structure and the lack of a neocortex indicates that
the form pain perception and suffering experienced by fish will
be very different to that perceived by humans.

>as well as misinterpretations of responses of fish to
>stimuli. He also noted that Sneddon, et al, misused statistical analysis
>in their findings. Among Dr Rose's conclusions is that "Rather than
>proving a capacity for pain, *THESE RESULTS SHOW A REMARKABLE RESISTANCE
>TO ORAL TRAUMA BY THE TROUT* [my emphasis]. It comes as no surprise,
>then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same
>fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes."

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If hooked fish feel no pain, then they will be caught again within a few minutes.
2) they are caught again within a few minutes
therefore
3) hooked fish feel no pain

> From his critique, which is available at the link below, here is Dr
>Rose's case that Sneddon, et al, misinterpreted results.
>
> The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were
> misinterpreted.
>
> 1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large
> volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid
> solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the
> sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid would have
> been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3
> ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains
> a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and
> cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating
> receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose
> of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not
> affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they
> resumed feeding in less than three hours.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the tested fish felt no pain, then their activity would not be affected.
2) Their activity was not affected
therefore
3) the tested fish felt no pain.

> Furthermore, fish
> that received no injection at all or fish that received a saline
> injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes,
> showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect
> than just handling. The acid and venom-injected fish also
> showed an infrequent rocking behavior that may have reflected a
> difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given
> the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the
> injection.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain,
then they would exhibit an infrequent rocking behaviour.
2) They exhibited an infrequent rocking behaviour
therefore
3) the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain.

> But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response
> to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to
> believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive ]
> response, rather than an indication of “pain”.

And, likewise, there's no reason to believe that it isn't an
unconscious nociceptive response, but pain instead, so their
conclusion remains an ipse dixt.

Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
steel-jawed traps suffer no pain when chewing through
their limbs to get free, Tex?