Do fish feel pain?

[Drstrangelove]

I agree with the sentiment that "humans are superior and unique" is a fallacy. The argument that Key makes above (in the linked article), that "only humans can report feeling pain" is a little different though.

In the "fish don't feel pain" camp, one of the arguments is that we can never truly understand the way another species thinks and perceives the world. Indeed, as J J. H. mentioned above, it can be really hard to figure out if individuals think/feel the same way as other individuals within a species. But to Key's point, humans communicate best with humans, so humans are in a better position to understand other humans. Humans don't communicate very well with fish, so it is hard for a human to understand how a fish feels or whether it is in pain etc. To Key, this means that you can only learn about a fish's behavior by examination of the physical structure and activity of the brain.

Everything above applies to other people and other animals equally well. We never actually understand what another person or animal or organism thinks.

So the author is being pointless as well as contradictory. We don't really know anything about any other person or organism undercuts the author's point when he says:

"Only humans can report feeling pain."

You can't say you don't know, but then flip and claim to know.

Because fish lack a homologus structure for the neocortex, they must therefore not experience "pain".

Because God made us in his image we must be at the center of the universe.
Because we have planes and cars, we must be the only animals that make tools.
Because we can only understand ourselves, we must be the only animals with language.
Because we don't think other animals make war, bury their dead, kill for fun, it must be true that we are the only ones that do those things.


None of this is different in the author's argument than all the others. It is self centered, inside a bubble thinking that presumes to know exactly how everything in the world / universe works.

He STARTS with an assumption that there is one and only one way for things to work: the way humans work. He then assumes that if an animal doesn't have the "thing" that a human has, the animal can't have the same results. Sounds oh so very familiar in any one of hundreds of scientific papers and books.

The lack of humility from a scientist following centuries of science being proven wrong thousands of times is astounding.

 

[J. H.]

But, is the "scream" of the chicken "the best possible response" to the situation, in which case it might be evolutionarily conserved, or is it a visceral response to the present situation?

The same can be asked of a person.

 

[johnny potatoes]

Had anyone ever used live bait while fishing? Fish or worm, when you stick that hook in them its obvious at least to me that it hurts.

 

[Grinch]

Hello; back when I used live bait, read minnows, I was told they did not feel pain by older fishermen. I was instructed as how to insert a hook into the minnows in various ways. Thru the back, in the mouth and out near the eye, thru both lips and so on. It was convenient for me to believe that at the time.
It may be that having such a possible "myth" allows for the treatment of fish in these ways so we do not feel guilty.
I have heard the same sort of thing said about live lobsters going into a pot of boiling water.

This is getting at one of the broader implications of the scientific uncertainty surrounding the pain issue in fish. And that is, if we assume fish can feel pain, should we stop activities that cause them pain. This is not to say we should stop killing/eating them, but certainly we should think twice about putting a hook through their back and dangling them from a line in front of a much bigger fish in the hope of causing the bigger fish to spear itself in the mouth with a hook. The older fishermen above either believed the fish really doesn't feel pain, or felt the need to lie to you in order to make you feel better about the task at hand. A duality born of necessity ,ignorance, or indifference?

He STARTS with an assumption that there is one and only one way for things to work: the way humans work. He then assumes that if an animal doesn't have the "thing" that a human has, the animal can't have the same results. Sounds oh so very familiar in any one of hundreds of scientific papers and books.

The lack of humility from a scientist following centuries of science being proven wrong thousands of times is astounding.

Science is a process of discovery. It's all about forwarding ideas and either finding support, or not, for those ideas. Key is arguing for his idea and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. He does seriously lack perspective on the natural world though... and you are quite right that his lack of perspective comes across in his writing. Did you read the commentary of Key's paper by Carl Safina? I think you might like his take on the issue.

Had anyone ever used live bait while fishing? Fish or worm, when you stick that hook in them its obvious at least to me that it hurts.

Does it hurt, or is the fish/worm simply sensing something out of the ordinary and trying to get away? Good point about the fish vs. worm. They have a similar response to the hook "stimulus", don't they? Worms have a very simple brain (and nervous system in general) relative to vertebrates, but even they might be able to feel "pain".

 

[philipraposo1982]

Clearly we are not going to prove this one way or another but I think as fish keepers / pet owners we would like to think that our fish can feel pain and would like nothing more than to provide them a pain free life. At least I know this is what I hope for.

So while the topic is interesting I don't think its required to really determine one way or another if the fish feels the pain or not. Simply don't put your pet i a situation where it might feel pain.

 

[Drstrangelove]

Science is a process of discovery. It's all about forwarding ideas and either finding support, or not, for those ideas. Key is arguing for his idea and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

I disagree. In fact excluding discovery, which most science is not, what you've described is equally applicable to what a politician or a screenwriter in Hollywood does. Science does sometimes make discoveries. But that's part of science, not science, in the same way that a wheel is not a car or a tusk is not an elephant.

A lot of science simply confirms what other people did. A lot simply re organizes existing thoughts. A lot determines only that certain theories are wrong. It simply excludes possible avenues of knowledge.

Undisciplined random discovery is not science. Science is a systematic cohesive effort to build a body of knowledge obtained through a defined, objective and repeatable process. It's not random ideas and theories that are created ad hoc to fit whatever we want a conclusion to be.

Exploration is not science. Getting on the TV and finding out what's on is not science. Opening a letter and seeing what it is, is not science. Making up ideas and trying to convince people they are right, is not science. Arguing for an idea is not science.


One can look at the scientific method and deduce the problems in his point of view. He starts with a conclusion then argues why it's correct. That's not science.

His effort hasn't actually added anything to science. It's another theory much like the "we are at the center of the universe" theory which was presented with zero actually evidence other than ad hoc information.

 

[Drstrangelove]

Interesting to mention that in Key's summary he states exactly how he reached his conclusion.

"The thesis proposed here is based on the bioengineering principle that structure determines function."

One doesn't have to look far to find people who disagree.

http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol1/iss3/26/


The central role of the cortex in pain perception is undisputed. However, is it indeed justified to interpret pain perception as an exclusive function of the cortex, or could other brain areas be involved? Key (2016) argues that phylogenetically old brain regions such as thalamus and brain stem (which, by the way, are present in fish) function only in “noxious processing” and do not contribute to the feeling of pain. A number of authors contradict this interpretation, however, and consider those older brain regions to be a constitutive part of a neuronal network mediating pain perception (e.g., Pessoa and Adolphs, 2011; Damasio and Carvalho, 2013; Garcia-Larrea and Peyron, 2013). If the feeling of pain does indeed depend on a “pain matrix” integrating multiple brain areas rather than a single brain structure, couldn’t a certain form of pain perception already be possible in the absence of the cortex?

Those who want to see the rebuttal can find the pdf here:

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/KEY/Key_Segner.31.10.15.pdf

 

[Grinch]

I disagree. In fact excluding discovery, which most science is not, what you've described is equally applicable to what a politician or a screenwriter in Hollywood does. Science does sometimes make discoveries. But that's part of science, not science, in the same way that a wheel is not a car or a tusk is not an elephant.

A lot of science simply confirms what other people did. A lot simply re organizes existing thoughts. A lot determines only that certain theories are wrong. It simply excludes possible avenues of knowledge.

Undisciplined random discovery is not science. Science is a systematic cohesive effort to build a body of knowledge obtained through a defined, objective and repeatable process. It's not random ideas and theories that are created ad hoc to fit whatever we want a conclusion to be.

Exploration is not science. Getting on the TV and finding out what's on is not science. Opening a letter and seeing what it is, is not science. Making up ideas and trying to convince people they are right, is not science. Arguing for an idea is not science.


One can look at the scientific method and deduce the problems in his point of view. He starts with a conclusion then argues why it's correct. That's not science.

His effort hasn't actually added anything to science. It's another theory much like the "we are at the center of the universe" theory which was presented with zero actually evidence other than ad hoc information.

This is a very narrow view of science. It fits the day to day process pretty well, but excludes the big picture, to which I was referring. Some scientists are purely "idea" people and live/work amongst manuscripts/books/computers. Other scientists live in the lab grinding away on experiments. The "ideas" scientists often take some ribbing from the lab rats for "not doing anything", but that doesn't mean they don't have an important role in the overall process in reality.

While I personally don't agree with Key or his rationale, I find his ideas thought provoking... And motivating in the sense that I'd like to figure out a way to poke holes in his overall hypothesis via the scientific method. I think there is value to the process as a whole in that way.

 

[Ang]

Heck,
Earthworms feel pain. If they didnt, they wouldnt recoil when you stick a hook through their body. They would just lie there and let you.

If animals dont feel pain, they'll end up dead a lot sooner. Its part of survival. If you feel the heat, you dont get closer..

I dont know why there is even a scientific debate on the subject.

 

[Drstrangelove]

I recall people like that when I was in school. People who sat in a chair making up theories, cherry picked from various sources, performed no actual studies, math or tests, and ignored existing research. But offered instead a view from their own perspective.

We used to call them philosophers and theologians, appellations that they wore with honor. They knew and admitted that they cherry picked. They weren't trying to prove anything; they were in their view simply offering a view of what might be beyond our capability of knowing, but still might be true.

Now I guess we call those people scientists.