The Existence of Instincts

[Wowbagger]

Do instincts exist? Is the term outdated and completely useless? Or, is the general concept still valid, even if we have to adjust what we think of them and know about them?

At the moment, I am inclined to think the concept is still quite viable, and can still lead to productive gains in scientific research. Throughout this thread I will try to build such a case, and defend this position. But, I am willing to change my mind, if a stronger case is built the opposite way.

I would like to define "instinct" in this way, to start with:

The inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed.

(I will notify everyone if I come across a working definition that I like better.)

In his book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Steven Pinker builds a very strong case for innate human behaviors and mentalities (many of which are listed and summarized a page or two into chapter 10). For example:

An intuitive physics, which we use to keep track of how objects fall, bounce and bend. Its core intuition is the concept of the object, which occupies one place, exists for a continuous span of time, and follows laws of motion and force. [which are not necessarily Newtonian]

and

An intuitive economics, which we use to exchange goods and favors. It is based on the concept of reciprocal exchange, in which one party confers benefit to another and is entitled to an equivalent benefit in return.

I will go into details about those sorts of things, as need be.

I would also like to bring up The Baldwin Effect, as a possible evolutionary mechanism for instincts to emerge. The idea is that, over time, "learned skills" that are necessary for survival become more and more instinctive and innate over time; because there is a strong selection force for the genes that allow such skills to become easier and easier to learn... to the "point" at which it need not be "learned" at all, any more!

(The Wiki entry could use some clean up, at the moment, but I offer it because it is still a tolerable source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect )

Granted, the effect is still somewhat controversial, so I will not have the entire concept of instinct stand or fall solely on it. There could well be other methods by which they can develop.

But, now I open this discussion up to all of you! What arguments and evidence can you contribute for or against the concept of instinct?

[athon]

I'm assuming we're just referring to humans here?

I can't think of a single reason why the idea that humans have no instincts at all should be given any merit. No other animal seems to be without instinct. We readily display a range of unlearned behaviours from birth, and consistently display behaviours that might be culturally influenced yet fundamentally independent of upbringing.

I'd be interested if there was anybody who could argue that humans are without instinct at all.

Athon

[arthwollipot]

I wasn't aware that there was any doubt about the existence of instincts.

[Wowbagger]

This thread does NOT need to be exclusive to human instinct. Anyone can feel free to bring in other animals and life forms, if they'd like. (Bees, maybe?)

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I wasn't aware that there was any doubt about the existence of instincts.

Apparently, there might be a few folks on this Forum who think the concept of "instinct" is utterly useless. I am inviting them to defend that thought, here.

[athon]

How...strange.

Hm.

Athon

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by athon

How...strange.

Hm.

Athon

Apparently you haven't been following either the dance language in bees thread or the magnetic navigation in animals thread. The bees one in particular is interesting and very frustrating reading.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

This thread does NOT need to be exclusive to human instinct. Anyone can feel free to bring in other animals and life forms, if they'd like. (Bees, maybe?)

Yes, bees have an instinctive waggle dance.

I'll get my coat.

[Perpetual Student]

So do we have a new explanation (or a new word) for behaviors like birds building nests and feeding their young?

[athon]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Apparently you haven't been following either the dance language in bees thread or the magnetic navigation in animals thread. The bees one in particular is interesting and very frustrating reading.

Ok, I've just sent dial-a-ninja around to your house for making me read through that insanity.

Damn you. I want that five minutes back!

Athon

[Rosinbio]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

In case anyone is interested, I started a new thread about instincts, here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156366

Let us iron out the nature of their existence (or non-existence), once and for all!

You can't debate whether "instincts" exist, or not, as long as no one knows what an "instinct" is, i.e. as long as there is no usable definition that would enable anyone to determine whether a specific behavior is "instinctive:, or not. In fact, there is not even any point in debating the merit of a meaningless word!

Your idea reminds me of a highly relevant old anecdote:

A guy runs into his friend who is walking about, waving his arms in the air, every now and then, suddenly clenching a fist, drawing it close to his face, opening his fist, peering intently into his hand, then shaking it in sheer disgust, and proceeding to do the same thing again.

Guy says, "What are you doing?"

Friend says, "I'm catching carbulions!" (You can substitute any other meaningless word you want, including "instincts", when telling this anecdote.)

Guy says, "What's a carbulion?"

Friend says, "I don't know. I'll know when I catch one!"

Moved from honeybee thread; please post your comments in the appropriate thread

Posted By:Professor Yaffle

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

So do we have a new explanation (or a new word) for behaviors like birds building nests and feeding their young?

We sure do. The latest theory is that they take evening classes in home construction and good parenting.

[athon]

Originally Posted by Rosinbio

You can't debate whether "instincts" exist, or not, as long as no one knows what an "instinct" is, i.e. as long as there is no usable definition that would enable anyone to determine whether a specific behavior is "instinctive:, or not. In fact, there is not even any point in debating the merit of a meaningless word!

Your idea reminds me of a highly relevant old anecdote:

A guy runs into his friend who is walking about, waving his arms in the air, every now and then, suddenly clenching a fist, drawing it close to his face, opening his fist, peering intently into his hand, then shaking it in sheer disgust, and proceeding to do the same thing again.

Guy says, "What are you doing?"

Friend says, "I'm catching carbulions!" (You can substitute any other meaningless word you want, including "instincts", when telling this anecdote.)

Guy says, "What's a carbulion?"

Friend says, "I don't know. I'll know when I catch one!"

Moved from honeybee thread; please post your comments in the appropriate thread

Posted By:Professor Yaffle

I've always found the word instinct to be quite useful. I've never come across a group of biologists, psychologists, neurologists, sociologist or any other sort of -ologist who has had to stop conversations and say 'whoa, what do you mean by this 'instinct' thing?'.

Sure, it's hard to know where yellow turns into green and orange, but it doesn't make yellow a meaningless word.

Athon

[big-E]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

An intuitive physics, which we use to keep track of how objects fall, bounce and bend. Its core intuition is the concept of the object, which occupies one place, exists for a continuous span of time, and follows laws of motion and force. [which are not necessarily Newtonian]

I'm not entirely convinced this is unlearned and inherited... do babies and toddlers not experiment with basic empirical physics and learn it by themselves? I don't have references but I distinctly remember reading about an age at which young children learn (?) that objects exist continuously even when they can no longer be seen, and that things can continue to move at their previous velocity even when they are obscured. If I recall correctly children younger than the critical age would consider the object to no longer exist once it is hidden, or to have stopped moving once it was obscured.

In the second case I'm sure it was reported that in younger children their gaze would remain at the last point they saw it and they would show surprise when it appeared elsewhere, having continued to move. Once the rough physics was learned the gaze would track it to the likely exit point.

And they (anecdotally) seem to spend a lot of time moving/dropping/throwing things in a way that would seem to indicate learning how things fall, bounce etc., and a lot of failing to move, hold or pick up things that seem to indicate a lack of instinctive understanding of what will happen...

Admittedly this could be an instinct which only surfaces after a few months, but it seems a bit of a stretch when it resembles learned behaviour. Undoubtedly these sorts of experiments are prone to leading the child and over-interpreting the results of gaze direction etc. so I don't claim a definitive position here.

Surely something like nipple-seeking in a hungry infant is a clear-cut instinct? Works for animals too - give a new born puppy your cupped hand and it will nuzzle in looking for something to latch on to. I can't think of anything else to describe that as other than an instinct. Can't be learned as it happens immediately, with no cues (though admittedly some will fail to latch on).

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by athon

I've always found the word instinct to be quite useful. I've never come across a group of biologists, psychologists, neurologists, sociologist or any other sort of -ologist who has had to stop conversations and say 'whoa, what do you mean by this 'instinct' thing?'.

Sure, it's hard to know where yellow turns into green and orange, but it doesn't make yellow a meaningless word.

Athon

As for me, the only psychologists who I have heard use "instinct" to explain any aspect of behavior were the Freudians and their ilk. Biologists and psychologists describe complex, species specific, unlearned behaviors involving the whole organism as modal (formerly fixed ) action patterns.
I don't use the term instinct.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by big-E

[/indent]...Surely something like nipple-seeking in a hungry infant is a clear-cut instinct? Works for animals too - give a new born puppy your cupped hand and it will nuzzle in looking for something to latch on to. I can't think of anything else to describe that as other than an instinct. Can't be learned as it happens immediately, with no cues (though admittedly some will fail to latch on).

That, and any other relationship between a specific stimulus and a simple response, is a reflex.

[Fiona]

I am really glad you started this thread, Wowbagger. I had been thinking for a while that there are two very different issues in the bee thread and they needed to be separated like this.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed.

In this definition do you think that an instinct must result in a "fixed action pattern"?. That is, does the behaviour have to persist in exactly the same way no matter the circumstances in order to qualify? If it is changed in response to outcome does that make a difference to your characterisation of it as instinct?

[athon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

As for me, the only psychologists who I have heard use "instinct" to explain any aspect of behavior were the Freudians and their ilk. Biologists and psychologists describe complex, species specific, unlearned behaviors involving the whole organism as modal (formerly fixed ) action patterns.
I don't use the term instinct.

I realise I was slightly more facetious than necessary, however my point stands.

Would you say the word is meaningless?

I understand that some words might be a little more colloquial than others. As a science communicator, I'm constantly aware of the jargon used to described certain scientific phenomena and ways to marry them with terms that are more colloquial without compromising on their integrity. I've never found a problem (i.e. never had somebody seek clarification or correct me) using the term instinct to describe innate processes.

I'm not saying that in the context of a journal, there aren't more useful or precise descriptions. I'm saying that the term instinct is not meaningless.

Athon

[Dancing David]

This is where the 'JREF is 75% discussions of definitions' will be true.

It depends on how you define 'instinct', of course.

If you define 'instinct' as 'stereotypic behavior that all members of a species (often with sexual variation) engage in as a result of exposure to a certain stimulus because it appears to be part of genetically determined hard wired behavior' then humans have them up until about the age of six weeks, many animals have them to various degrees.

Now, the discussion usually then turns to the difference between learned behaviors and instinctual behaviors.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by athon

I realise I was slightly more facetious than necessary, however my point stands.

Would you say the word is meaningless?

I understand that some words might be a little more colloquial than others. As a science communicator, I'm constantly aware of the jargon used to described certain scientific phenomena and ways to marry them with terms that are more colloquial without compromising on their integrity. I've never found a problem (i.e. never had somebody seek clarification or correct me) using the term instinct to describe innate processes.

I'm not saying that in the context of a journal, there aren't more useful or precise descriptions. I'm saying that the term instinct is not meaningless.

Athon

I think it then depends on the meaning, there are instinctual behaviors in many animals, however you also will read the usage in application to humans.

Such as 'the instinct to survive', 'the instinct to reproduce' and the like. Those are truely learned behaviors, they may have biologically driven and even determined components, yet they are still learned behaviors.

[athon]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

This is where the 'JREF is 75% discussions of definitions' will be true.

I find that true for most debates and discussions.

Quote:

It depends on how you define 'instinct', of course.

If you define 'instinct' as 'stereotypic behavior that all members of a species (often with sexual variation) engage in as a result of exposure to a certain stimulus because it appears to be part of genetically determined hard wired behavior' then humans have them up until about the age of six weeks, many animals have them to various degrees.

Now, the discussion usually then turns to the difference between learned behaviors and instinctual behaviors.

Agreed.

I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had on the nature of learned behaviour versus behaviour that is not learned, but is inherited chemically. However, getting bogged down in the precise nuances of the term 'instinct' is, IMO, kind of silly and pointless.

Athon

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I am really glad you started this thread, Wowbagger. I had been thinking for a while that there are two very different issues in the bee thread and they needed to be separated like this.




In this definition do you think that an instinct must result in a "fixed action pattern"?. That is, does the behaviour have to persist in exactly the same way no matter the circumstances in order to qualify? If it is changed in response to outcome does that make a difference to your characterisation of it as instinct?

Well in terms of 'stereotypic behaviors' it would then not be truly 'stereotypic', that is the common usage in ethology and the like. Now there are some variables in 'fixed patterns of behavior' in that with mammals some members of a species will engage in the behaviors more rigidly, others will express the behaviors only partly.

But in general in say insects, fish and birds the behaviors appear often to be locked in and invariant.

Take the behavior of some butterflies and mating, there is a stereotypic response when a male butterfly is triggered by the 'female present' response, they will begin to peruse and bump the female to shower her with chemicals, the mating behavior might continue from there. But often the female gets away, you will then see the male pursue other butterflies nearby, but they will not bump them.

The female response to the behavior is to fly away, usually straight up into the air, but sometimes they will drop down instead (say 1/10), now when the male follows they will climb very high and then seem to reach a point where they then veer away.

Now this does seem to be the same for each member of the species and many species seem to do these exact behaviors.

Now I have seen a male butterfly (monarch) that seemed to be confused, in that it would pursue and try to bump any other monarch butterfly. But without study it would have been hard to say why, was it missing the trigger that chemically tells the butterflies what gender they are?

[athon]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I think it then depends on the meaning, there are instinctual behaviors in many animals, however you also will read the usage in application to humans.

As the OP said, however, the discussion's main point is whether instinct exists. Period. I'm yet to find somebody who a) doesn't attribute a vague meaning akin to 'behaviour of some sort that you don't have learn' to the word, and b) doesn't think that there are any organisms that demonstrate unlearned behaviours.

Of course, getting down to the nitty gritty, there are better terms and descriptions for such phenomena, and instinct might well be less technical. But that's not the same as saying the word is meaningless.

Quote:

Such as 'the instinct to survive', 'the instinct to reproduce' and the like. Those are truly learned behaviors, they may have biologically driven and even determined components, yet they are still learned behaviors.

There's my case in point - I think Jeff would agree that this is the prime reason those who study behaviour don't use the term. 'Instinct to survive' is useful in a general, colloquial sense, but beyond that it's too fuzzy to create precise meaning. We all have a vague notion that it refers to those traits that influence our desire to avoid harm and to engage in sexual activities. In that sense, 'instinct' exists. Yet to discuss its details in depth, better terms are required.

Athon

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Fiona

...In this definition do you think that an instinct must result in a "fixed action pattern"?. That is, does the behaviour have to persist in exactly the same way no matter the circumstances in order to qualify? If it is changed in response to outcome does that make a difference to your characterisation of it as instinct?

That is why the term "fixed" has been gradually replaced by "modal", in that some variations around a mode are usually observed. The question of whether these behaviors can be changed "in response to outcome" (operant conditioning) is an empirical one. I don't know.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Apparently, there might be a few folks on this Forum who think the concept of "instinct" is utterly useless.

For small values of "few"?

[PingOfPong]

I could buy the idea that the word is outdated. Maybe scientists could come up with a new word with a unique and precise definition. It's clear that in one sense, "instinct" is used to refer to something that is so thoroughly learned through experience that it no longer requires conscious thought.

For example, "The ninja, with all her years of martial arts training, instinctively deflected her attacker's blows."

Then, in another sense, the word refers to a behavior that had no apparent way of being learned and is common to normal members of a species.

For example, "The newly born puppy instinctively suckled at her mother's breast."


We either have to consider the context of word usage or we could be like a certain person in another thread and demand an explanation of how instincts can exist at all since only humans can study at a ninja dojo.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by athon

As the OP said, however, the discussion's main point is whether instinct exists. Period. I'm yet to find somebody who a) doesn't attribute a vague meaning akin to 'behaviour of some sort that you don't have learn' to the word, and b) doesn't think that there are any organisms that demonstrate unlearned behaviours.

Of course, getting down to the nitty gritty, there are better terms and descriptions for such phenomena, and instinct might well be less technical. But that's not the same as saying the word is meaningless.

There's my case in point - I think Jeff would agree that this is the prime reason those who study behaviour don't use the term. 'Instinct to survive' is useful in a general, colloquial sense, but beyond that it's too fuzzy to create precise meaning. We all have a vague notion that it refers to those traits that influence our desire to avoid harm and to engage in sexual activities. In that sense, 'instinct' exists. Yet to discuss its details in depth, better terms are required.

Athon

Another historical reason is that McDougal (1908) attempted to explain much of human social behavior with a large array of "instincts", 56 or so as I recall. Psychologists came to realize that merely naming tendencies to act in certain ways as instincts really explained nothing.

[Wowbagger]

(When I have more time, I would like to respond to other specific posts. For now, I can only get to one of them.)

Originally Posted by Fiona

In this definition do you think that an instinct must result in a "fixed action pattern"?. That is, does the behaviour have to persist in exactly the same way no matter the circumstances in order to qualify?

Enviornmental factors could interfere with the actions of instinctive behavior. Someone might "instinctively" walk in a normal manner on slippery ice, but that does not mean they will succeed. They might slip and fall, and alter their method of walking across... but then go right back to normal walking once they are off the ice, and that would still count.

Assuming that "walking" is instinctive. Part of the ability to walk might be, though it takes some training to get it perfected, I think.

Same thing with language. Steve Pinker makes a case that many basic aspects of verbal language are instinctive, but that training in particular languages shapes what actually comes out.

So, there are some things that are a mix of learned and unlearned behaviors. That does not mean the term "instinct" is useless. For one thing, the behavior of newborn baby animals is certainly not learned, I assume.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Enviornmental factors could interfere with the actions of instinctive behavior. Someone might "instinctively" walk in a normal manner on slippery ice, but that does not mean they will succeed. They might slip and fall, and alter their method of walking across... but then go right back to normal walking once they are off the ice, and that would still count.

Assuming that "walking" is instinctive. Part of the ability to walk might be, though it takes some training to get it perfected, I think.

Same thing with language. Steve Pinker makes a case that many basic aspects of verbal language are instinctive, but that training in particular languages shapes what actually comes out.

So, there are some things that are a mix of learned and unlearned behaviors. That does not mean the term "instinct" is useless. For one thing, the behavior of newborn baby animals is certainly not learned, I assume.

I think this nicely illustrates the problem here. We really do need to clarify what we mean when we use the word. I gather from Jeff Corey's posts that this has been recognised within the scientific community. The rest of us would get on better if we agreed a meaning and stuck to it. At present it is open to confusion in much the same way as "addiction" for example. To that extent I think Rosinbio has a partial point and I think it is quite important

[Wowbagger]

Behavior, by it's nature, is going to be an emergent system. There will almost always be some combination of learned and unlearned behaviors going on, at any one time. That is the valid portion of Rosinbio's thinking.

But, the percentage might vary. Often, the unlearned, innate concepts will rule, (more often than we generally like to admit) except when the "learned mind" is paying attention.

In the case of baby's behavior, it is difficult to see where they learned anything.

In the case of bees: The waggle dance reliably emerges in many different species. It might be adjusted locally, through learning, but the basics of it are probably instinctual. (That could also be why the word "language" is useful to describe it.)

I should also point out that the "definition problem" is not unique to instincts. Words like "species", "gene", and "phenotype" have similar battles going on. That does not mean the concepts behind the words are useless.

Rosinbio seems to shun the word, entirely.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

As for me, the only psychologists who I have heard use "instinct" to explain any aspect of behavior were the Freudians and their ilk. Biologists and psychologists describe complex, species specific, unlearned behaviors involving the whole organism as modal (formerly fixed ) action patterns.
I don't use the term instinct.

Isn't that silly? We have a perfectly good single word for "complex, species specific, unlearned behaviors involving the whole organism as modal (formerly fixed ) action patterns." and you reject it for the preceding verbose alternative? Now, that is a classic example of academic bluster. Fortunately, those of us who can use the common language are not tethered by such nonsense.


Here is a standard dictionary definition:

Main Entry: 1in·stinct
Pronunciation: \ˈin-ˌstiŋ(k)t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin instinctus impulse, from instinguere to incite; akin to Latin instigare to instigate
Date: 15th century
1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

Not bad, don't you agree? Of course, psychologists could tweak it a bit to suit their professional needs.

You see, in mathematics we have:

1 a : a branch of mathematics that deals with the measurement, properties, and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfaces, and solids; broadly : the study of properties of given elements that remain invariant under specified transformations

but instead of saying all that we use the word "geometry."
Perhaps psychologists could learn something from that example.

[Bikewer]

Seems relatively easy to me...Throw a punch at someone's head. Chances are they will simultaneously duck and throw thier arms up protectively. An "instinctive" reaction....

We could talk more lubriciously about sexual signalling.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by nathan

Yes, bees have an instinctive waggle dance.

I'll get my coat.

RosinBio hijack in three....two....one....


ETA: The mere discussion of the possibility that bees do not dance for any significant reason should not, and is not considered a hijack, but the troll posting of unbacked block text over and over again with the defense of "SEE!" is.

[Careyp74]

I think of instinct as a behavior other than the most obvious actions something would follow when given a certain condition.

Could the bee dance itself be something a bee learns in the hive, when other more experienced bees return, and the new bees follow others out of the hive?

in an online examplea kangaroo rat instantly performs an automatic escape jump maneuver when it hears the sound of a striking rattlesnake, even if it has never encountered a snake before. Would a Kangaroo Rat jump when it encounters ANY sound it never encountered before?

Read more: http://science.jrank.org/pages/3611/...#ixzz0TptU0YVX

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Seems relatively easy to me...Throw a punch at someone's head. Chances are they will simultaneously duck and throw thier arms up protectively. An "instinctive" reaction....

We could talk more lubriciously about sexual signalling.

The reason i would say it is not an instinct is that it is a learned behvior.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger;5199589.

Assuming that "walking" is instinctive. Part of the ability to walk might be, though it takes some training to get it perfected, I think.

Well for humans it is a learned behavior for other animals, in some cases, less so.

[Careyp74]

repost

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Well for humans it is a learned behavior for other animals, in some cases, less so.

I tend to disagree. The instinct is for humans to walk, on two legs, the manner in which a person walks may be learned or may be due to physiological differences/problems with their bones, joints, muscles, nerves etc.

ETA: I should qualify the above to, the instinct for animals is to walk. This should be evident by the fact that orphaned quadrupeds, raised by humans, without interaction with other quadrupeds, would still attempt to stand and walk without learning this "behaviour" from their human "parent".

Here is a paper that I found for Ms.Rosin on the "bee" thread that explores the "instinct" and development of walking in human babies.

Ontogeny of human locomotor control I. Infant stepping, supported locomotion and transition to independent locomotion.

I don't post it as be all and end all on the subject, but it seems pertinent to the discussion of this particular "instinct".

I would be very interested in Ms.Rosin's opinion on whether web making by spiders is an instinct or a learned behaviour. To me this is a better subject for discussion as there may be fewer confusing factors such as that with learning and nurturing in human development.

Since Ms.Rosin's contention is that instinct does not exist at all, that conclusion should be applicable to all and any animals.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

(...Same thing with language. Steve Pinker makes a case that many basic aspects of verbal language are instinctive, but that training in particular languages shapes what actually comes out...

Pinker certainly does not "make a case". He makes assertions.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

Pinker certainly does not "make a case". He makes assertions.

He builds on them with experimental evidence.

One example I remember, from the top of my head, is the Wug Test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wug_test

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

He builds on them with experimental evidence.

One example I remember, from the top of my head, is the Wug Test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wug_test

If that is an experiment, where is the independent variable?
http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/topics/wugs/wugs.pdf