Putting 3D glasses on cuttlefish and praying mantises

[Ophiolite]

Actually, I could imagine that echolocation might possibly provide more accurate information about distance than does vision. But my question still stands. The headline of the linked article says "the results were surprising", but it doesn't really say why they were surprising.

It is not a scientific publication. It is a report on a scientific publication. It's objective is primarily commercial, not scientific.

The results were surprising
is more attractive than
The results were in line with expectations based upon prior research with other species.

The title of the scientific publication is "Cuttlefish use stereopsis to strike at prey" and it is clear from that paper that the researchers were not surprised by their finding that "although there is convergent evolution in depth computation, cuttlefish stereopsis is likely afforded by a different algorithm than in humans, and not just a different implementation."

Caution should always be exercised when getting ones science third hand.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Excuse my ignorance, but is there any animal which doesn't have depth perception? Seems like such animals would have got Darwined out of the game a long time ago.

Many animals have eyes basically on opposite sides of their head, so there is very little, if any, overlap between the fields of vision of the two eyes. Their eyes also often move independently, so it would seem they are not making use of stereopsis for depth perception.

 

[Chesterton]

It is not a scientific publication. It is a report on a scientific publication. It's objective is primarily commercial, not scientific.

The results were surprising
is more attractive than
The results were in line with expectations based upon prior research with other species.

The title of the scientific publication is "Cuttlefish use stereopsis to strike at prey" and it is clear from that paper that the researchers were not surprised by their finding that "although there is convergent evolution in depth computation, cuttlefish stereopsis is likely afforded by a different algorithm than in humans, and not just a different implementation."

Caution should always be exercised when getting ones science third hand.

Yes, all that goes without saying.

Many animals have eyes basically on opposite sides of their head, so there is very little, if any, overlap between the fields of vision of the two eyes. Their eyes also often move independently, so it would seem they are not making use of stereopsis for depth perception.

Well I just asked about depth perception. I know we don't need stereopsis for it; I can close one eye and still reach for my coffee cup just fine.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, all that goes without saying.

Hmm. And yet you felt compelled to say "The headline of the linked article says "the results were surprising", but it doesn't really say why they were surprising."

Should I just ignore the next implied question you ask on the basis that you are actually fully aware of the reason, "which goes without saying"?

 

[Chesterton]

Hmm. And yet you felt compelled to say "The headline of the linked article says "the results were surprising", but it doesn't really say why they were surprising."

Well, "compelled" is a strong word. I was mildly curious.

Should I just ignore the next implied question you ask on the basis that you are actually fully aware of the reason, "which goes without saying"?

I don't understand your question about some "next implied question". ?

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, "compelled" is a strong word. I was mildly curious.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but here is how the exchange looks from my POV:
You: I don't understand why the research results were described as surprising.
Me: It's a click bait headline. They want to create enough interest in the mind of the casual reader to make them read the article.
You: Yeah, I knew that.
Me (to myself): Then why, oh why did you ask?

I don't understand your question about some "next implied question". ?

You never asked a direct question originally, but one was implied in your statement - The headline of the linked article says "the results were surprising", but it doesn't really say why they were surprising.

So, the next time you post an implied question do I invest time to answer it, if I am going to be told that you already knew the answer? Because I'm an optimist I'll probably give it a go anyway, with the hope that this time you'll perceive it to be of some value.

 

[Chesterton]

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but here is how the exchange looks from my POV:
You: I don't understand why the research results were described as surprising.
Me: It's a click bait headline. They want to create enough interest in the mind of the casual reader to make them read the article.
You: Yeah, I knew that.
Me (to myself): Then why, oh why did you ask?

Because someone posted the article in a discussion forum so I thought we could discuss it. If you think the headline is pure click bait, and there's nothing interesting about the study, fine, but I was hoping the OP might answer, since he's the one that "retweeted" the article, so to speak.

You never asked a direct question originally,..

I did. I asked if there were any animals which do not have depth perception. I got two replies which were strange non-answers about stereopsis and echolocation, which is kind of like asking "are there any restaurants which don't sell hamburgers" and being told of two different ways that restaurants sell hamburgers. Those responses prompted my second question about why someone would describe the findings as surprising.

 

[Ophiolite]

Because someone posted the article in a discussion forum so I thought we could discuss it. If you think the headline is pure click bait, and there's nothing interesting about the study, fine, but I was hoping the OP might answer, since he's the one that "retweeted" the article, so to speak.

I did. I asked if there were any animals which do not have depth perception. I got two replies which were strange non-answers about stereopsis and echolocation, which is kind of like asking "are there any restaurants which don't sell hamburgers" and being told of two different ways that restaurants sell hamburgers. Those responses prompted my second question about why someone would describe the findings as surprising.

OK. It seems my posts are ambiguous, unclear and confusing. I'll try to simplify; if that comes across as rude, well, tough.

My interest is not in your original motivation or your original question. Your second "question" was not a question: no question mark, no sentence structure indicating a question. It was an implied question. Something I already pointed out to you. I gave you an answer. Your response was rude. I tried, as diplomatically as possible to point that out. I guess I was way too diplomatic. I think we're done.

 

[Chesterton]

OK. It seems my posts are ambiguous, unclear and confusing. I'll try to simplify; if that comes across as rude, well, tough.

My interest is not in your original motivation or your original question. Your second "question" was not a question: no question mark, no sentence structure indicating a question. It was an implied question. Something I already pointed out to you.

You are correct.

I gave you an answer. Your response was rude. I tried, as diplomatically as possible to point that out. I guess I was way too diplomatic. I think we're done.

I apologize for being rude. I didn't mean to be. I did feel your response was condescending though, because the distinction between the "real science" and the reporting of same in popular press is one that's made often in this forum frequently over the years, and I thought we all kind of knew it.