From a scienfific point of view, observations of interactions of individual animals are invaluable as they provide ideas and insights. I think observations are critically important and the method that scientists actually use isn’t the linear scientific method taught in schools. The challenge is that an observed behavior can have many different plausible explanations. The “art” in science is designing a controlled experiment that eliminates alternative explanations. This is often harder than it sounds.
Our brains have evolved to connect the dots and form explanations. Generally an observation of a single animal or interaction is not sufficient to form a conclusion and explanation although it can disprove a theory. For example, the theory that life does not exist in the deep-sea or all life uses energy from sunlight can be disproved by a single observation of a deep-sea vent community. Most of the time, it takes carefully controlled experiments to explain a perceived pattern.
Take a close look at the cuttlefish observational learning experiment below. Lets break it down into parts.
When first presented with live crab prey, naive cuttlefish typically approached from the front and were often pinched. In subsequent trials, this initial group rapidly improved their prey capture techniques and attacked from above or behind the crab. Naive cuttlefish that first watched experienced conspecifics prey on crabs captured crabs without getting pinched.
What if we stopped there? What if the experiment was only run with naive cuttlefish and those that observed other cuttlefish? Does this sound like observational learning to you? It does to me. . . But keep reading. . .
However, naive cuttlefish that first watched non-attacking cuttlefish in the same tank with crabs also avoided pinches, as did naive cuttlefish that were exposed only to crab odor. All three experimental groups were as successful on their first predation as the initial group was on its second predation. . .
Would you still conclude that observational learning had occurred? If so, how do you explain the improvement based on olfaction? Is your explanation different once you consider the results of the controls? How important are those controls to how you interpret the results? What if Boal et al hadn’t run those controls?
Animals do amazing things and cephalopods are especially intriguing. However, scientists have to be careful of how we connect the dots. We build on each others work and challenge each other. Science is an evidence based human endeavor, it is not infallible or perfect, not always popular (e.g. Galileo) but it is one way to explain the natural world. Often controlled experiments with a number of different animals are needed to eliminate alternative explanations.
Here is the full reference and abstract which I quoted above:
Observational learning does not explain improvement in predation tactics by cuttlefish (Mollusca: Cephalopoda)
J. G. Boal, , K. M. Wittenberg and R. T. Hanlon
Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1015, USA
Received 17 August 1999; revised 10 August 2000; accepted 18 August 2000. Available online 26 January 2001.
Abstract
When first presented with live crab prey, naive cuttlefish typically approached from the front and were often pinched. In subsequent trials, this initial group rapidly improved their prey capture techniques and attacked from above or behind the crab. Naive cuttlefish that first watched experienced conspecifics prey on crabs captured crabs without getting pinched. However, naive cuttlefish that first watched non-attacking cuttlefish in the same tank with crabs also avoided pinches, as did naive cuttlefish that were exposed only to crab odor. All three experimental groups were as successful on their first predation as the initial group was on its second predation, but the attack techniques they used were not as well developed as those of the initial group on their fifth trial. Results suggest that odor may serve as a primer for cuttlefish predatory attack behavior, perhaps by enhancing food arousal and improving attention. Practice was required for further improvements in predation techniques. We found no evidence that cuttlefish improved their predation techniques by observing conspecifics.