Papers by Prof. Shawn Thompson
book-in-progress, 2024
This is a work-in-progress examining how to produce better, more meaningful questions by making u... more This is a work-in-progress examining how to produce better, more meaningful questions by making use of the Socratic elenchus, the Zen Buddhism facility for creating questions, the psychoanalytic process and the practical applications of questions in journalism. Does that sound farfetched? Read, decide for yourself and converse with me either on my website www.socraticzen.com or by email [email protected]
Page 1. The experts praise The Intimate Ape “An extraordinary book that adds to our understanding... more Page 1. The experts praise The Intimate Ape “An extraordinary book that adds to our understanding of the animal world.” —Jeffrey MoussaieffMasson, author of When Elephants Weep “Heartfelt, humanistic . . . makes a compelling ...
ASEBL Journal, 2019
Scientists don’t design research to fit legal principles. For that reason, I want to start a disc... more Scientists don’t design research to fit legal principles. For that reason, I want to start a discussion with this article of how research could be designed to fit the legal argument of Steven Wise of the U.S. Nonhuman Rights Project that a habeas corpus application should apply to an intelligent creature like a chimpanzee because the creature meets the basic legal principle of autonomy.
To start a discussion like that means a change in thinking about the research. It means adapting research to the area where two very different domains of rationality, science and the legal system, overlap in an uneasy alliance.
I want to start that discussion by describing the differences of the two domains of rationality, by examining the way they interact in court, and by speculating on what type of focus an investigation into the minds of intelligent species might support the legal argument of autonomy. What I will leave to others is the actual design and methodology of this kind of research and the further development of what focus of investigation on the minds of intelligent species would be best. I may offer examples from my observations and from interviews I conducted relating to orangutans and the scientists and zookeepers working with them, but my examples are intended to illustrate the plausibility of conceptualizations of the minds of apes that would be useful legally. I use comparisons between people and apes, both ways, people to apes and apes to people, following the researchers who believe that people and apes are so akin that the difference between them is one of degree, not kind. That, of course, is also a good premise, if it is right, for arguing rights for apes.
An exploration of the ethical issues of allowing an orangutan named Sandra to make her own choice... more An exploration of the ethical issues of allowing an orangutan named Sandra to make her own choice in a court case in Argentina.
orangutan book by Prof. Shawn Thompson
Conference Presentations by Prof. Shawn Thompson
This 25-minute podcast about Socrates and the art of inquiry began with the dilemma, provoked by ... more This 25-minute podcast about Socrates and the art of inquiry began with the dilemma, provoked by the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, of how to present an examination of inquiry and dialogue in the contradictory form of a monologue. Originally, I was going to speak at a small conference in Athens, Greece, which would get me to Athens, where I could then walk the streets and visit the acropolis for the first time in my life, at 68 years of age, two years short of the age of Socrates when he accepted the sentence of death in 399 B.C. However, that walk through the acropolis was not destined to be. The world went into a lockdown at that exact moment. As I tried to adjust with a podcast to be played in Athens, I realized how uncomfortable I am with a spoken monologue and grappled with the problem of incorporating other voices, as Michael Bakhtin would propose, in a monologue that tries to break free of being a monologue. Part of the solution was the question I posed to myself, Is there a Greek therapist working in the Socratic tradition? As luck would have it, there was, a genial therapist and Greek named Socrates Panayi living on the island of Cyprus. The rest of the solution you will see by watching the podcast in the best personas I can muster. What do you think of the result? Shawn Thompson, Thompson Rivers University, British Columbia, Canada. See https://youtu.be/e1blZNktAnU
Uploads
Papers by Prof. Shawn Thompson
To start a discussion like that means a change in thinking about the research. It means adapting research to the area where two very different domains of rationality, science and the legal system, overlap in an uneasy alliance.
I want to start that discussion by describing the differences of the two domains of rationality, by examining the way they interact in court, and by speculating on what type of focus an investigation into the minds of intelligent species might support the legal argument of autonomy. What I will leave to others is the actual design and methodology of this kind of research and the further development of what focus of investigation on the minds of intelligent species would be best. I may offer examples from my observations and from interviews I conducted relating to orangutans and the scientists and zookeepers working with them, but my examples are intended to illustrate the plausibility of conceptualizations of the minds of apes that would be useful legally. I use comparisons between people and apes, both ways, people to apes and apes to people, following the researchers who believe that people and apes are so akin that the difference between them is one of degree, not kind. That, of course, is also a good premise, if it is right, for arguing rights for apes.
orangutan book by Prof. Shawn Thompson
Conference Presentations by Prof. Shawn Thompson
To start a discussion like that means a change in thinking about the research. It means adapting research to the area where two very different domains of rationality, science and the legal system, overlap in an uneasy alliance.
I want to start that discussion by describing the differences of the two domains of rationality, by examining the way they interact in court, and by speculating on what type of focus an investigation into the minds of intelligent species might support the legal argument of autonomy. What I will leave to others is the actual design and methodology of this kind of research and the further development of what focus of investigation on the minds of intelligent species would be best. I may offer examples from my observations and from interviews I conducted relating to orangutans and the scientists and zookeepers working with them, but my examples are intended to illustrate the plausibility of conceptualizations of the minds of apes that would be useful legally. I use comparisons between people and apes, both ways, people to apes and apes to people, following the researchers who believe that people and apes are so akin that the difference between them is one of degree, not kind. That, of course, is also a good premise, if it is right, for arguing rights for apes.