Abstract:
An experiment investigated the assumption that a domestic house cat will not eat something that is perceived as smelling bad to the cat. Drawing on numerous studies that the author read or thought he had read, the experimenter argues that cats may have free will.
Introduction:
Their is accumulating evidence that television science is not scientific. For example, Jones (2006) argues that Fonzie could not have jumped his motorcycle over a shark, Buttkiss (2000) asserts that radioactive spinach would not have made Giligan stronger, and in his landmark study McCafferty (2008) concludes that shows investigating the paranormal never find evidence of the paranormal.
The Sardine Factor:
Joining the ranks of these debunkers, McGrath (2009) observes that the ABC science fiction show “FlashForward” is equally lacking in its basic understanding of science:
The FlashForward version [of Schroedinger's Cat in a box] has a cat hidden away with a poisoned sardine. Not only does this not involve quantum indeterminacy, but unless the poison can be smelled, there is really no doubt that the cat will eat the sardine, is there?
Aim, Design, & Hypothesis:
The aim of this experiment was to test if a domestic house cat would eat something that smelled bad. The dependent variable in this experiment is one domestic house cat who is presented with a choice of something that tastes good and something that tastes bad.
Method:
One domestic house cat participated in this experiment. “Fred” (aka the house cat) was presented with a choice of two sardines. Sardine A (clear plate) contained a normal sardine while Sardine B (the blue plate) was stuffed with a crushed kitty vitamin. In a previous experiment it had been proven conclusively that “Fred” would not eat the kitty vitamin without assistance (Patterson, 2008).
Results:
Fred was placed at an equal distance from both sardine plates. Moreover, Fred did not see the experimenter treat Sardine B (blue plate) with the cat vitamin therefore he lacked any prior knowledge of either sardines’ condition. In the video Fred is observed walking directly to the control Sardine and then he proceeds to devour it. While this is happening something unexpected occurs: “Karli”, another one of the experimenter’s cats, interrupts the test. She first smells Sardine A, ignores it, and moves on to Sardine B. After a few sniffs she concludes that neither Sardine is worth eating. Fred, however, finishes Sardine A and proceeds to devour Sardine B.
Conclusion:
The results of this experiment indicate that cats have free will. These findings may seriously challenge theology’s assertion that Homo sapiens have a special place in creation. The experimenter believes that more studies need to be conducted before any final conclusions are proposed.
References:
Buttkiss, D. H. (2000). The effects of radioactivity on domestic seeds. Journal of Stuff You Should Not Try, 3(1), 11-15.
Jones, H. F. (2006). Happy Days were really not that happy. Journal of Comparative Pop Culture, 55 (3), 893-896.
McCafferty, J. B. (2008). Big foot or big fake? Journal of Erich von Daniken Studies, 34(4), 23-30.
Patterson, B. (2008). I can’t feel my face — please call a medic! Journal of Bad Ideas, 17(2), 10-11.
Aaaaa, your premise has a flaw. I gather you consider humans an equal species. Sorry, they are clearly inferior. EG When it comes to food they’re sense of smell is so bad they like limburger cheese. I rest my case.
visit me at http://www.sandysays1.wordpress.com
Only one flaw?
But I like you and your blog, Bob Sandy
As an academic researcher, I have to conclude that this research was clearly not performed by a proper academic. If it were, then before publishing the author would have recast it as a test of methods for ensuring that cats eat their vitamins, it would have been declared a firm success, and the academic would now be drawing an industry salary as a promoter of sardine-based veterinary nutrition.
Tim,
My agent will be in touch.
-B
I love that you have an article published in the Journal of Bad Ideas. Are you submitting next to the Journal of Stuff you Should Not Try?
Llama,
No, I am currently working on my new book proposal. Tentative title is I drink to forget: Tales from academia.
I do, however, have several ideas for the Journal of Bad Ideas including an article tentatively titled: “When homeless attack: Why it’s a bad idea to walk home tipsy from a conference in downtown Chicago at 2 AM looking for a place that sells hot dogs.”
-B
This was the best way to start a Monday. Coffee, logical thinking, and conclusion in doubt.
I do agree with one of the other commentors – I think you may have lost out on the use of the double-blind study. Your results may have been skewed.
Tater,
I conducted that experiment after two glasses of wine. Does that count as “double blind”?
-B
Tipsy?
I seem to remember a certain person staggering down the street ranting loudly, “Man, I need a sausage!!! Can’t a guy get a sausage in this town??” And you wonder why the homeless attack.
Again, I ask: tipsy?
Llama,
You were no doubt tired from that very long conference – jet lag and all can effect one’s perception. I certainly was not staggering because I only had one beer. Though I DO remember getting my sausage (eventually) and also being swore at by some homeless person.
If memory serves me she made a derogatory comment about my sexuality and also told me to go “F” myself.
Ah, Chicago…
Your study also suggests that women are the smarter species.