The Journal of Animal Consciousness Vol 1, Issue 2 Vol 1 Issue 2 | Página 3

Herzog concludes:
"The fact is that many studies of the positive effects of
pets on people do not pass the replication test.
Further, pop science writers (of which I am one) are
often guilty of only covering the good stuff when it
comes to the animals in our lives. For example,
newspapers accounts of the Minnesota study only
reported that cat owners had lower death rates. They
neglected to mention that dog owners and even
present cat owners were no better off than people
without pets. So you might want to dig a little deeper
the next time you read that playing with a poodle will
unclog your arteries and heal a broken heart."

animals are conscious can easily be used by those
who choose to harm animals. Indeed, this sort of
denialism about what we already know also shows its
face in discussions about climate change. Why some
people continue to deny or ignore data produced by
solid science baffles me, although it's clear there are
political and other agendas. Some who work to
increase animal welfare are paid by companies that
have strong economic interests in raising animals for
food or using them in other venues and we shouldn't
let animals suffer as a result.
So, why do animals really matter?
Clearly we have a problem brewing in that Hal
Herzog isn't so sure that animals do much good for us

Other researchers clearly disagree with Herzog. For

and Marian Dawkins doesn't think we really know

example, in her recent book Why Animals Matter,

they're conscious. I'm glad I'm not her dog. Currently,

Marian Dawkins concludes that we still don't really

existing information about animal consciousness is

know if other animals are conscious so the reason

(some may say seems to be) more convincing than

they matter is because of what they can do for us. She

data that show that animals are good for us (although

writes (p. 184), "We need to rethink our view of those

I'm not as skeptical as Herzog). Skeptics should err on

millions of non-human animals, not just in regard to

the side of the animals because the data on

what (sic) they are in themselves, but also in how our

consciousness are so convincing and consistent with

own futures are inseparably bound up with

Charles Darwin's ideas about evolutionary continuity

theirs." (Throughout Dawkins refers to animals as

namely, if we have something so do "they" (other

"that", "what", and "which" rather than "who".)

animals).

Skepticism and denialism about science

If we accept Dawkins' claim that we really don't know

I call Dawkins' militant skepticism and agnosticism
about animal consciousness Dawkins' Dangerous
Idea because her denial about the significance of the
plethora of data that clearly show that nonhuman

if animals are conscious her belief that they matter
because of what they can do for us and that we should
appeal "to people's self-interests" (p. 115), a brand of
(too) strong anthropocentrism, is, according to
Herzog's analysis, weak, and leaves animals out in the
3

© The Society for Animal Consciousness 2016.

Issue 2, Vol 1, April 2016.