I never interpreted the Cow Tools strip as saying "cows are too dumb to use tools", but more along the lines of "imagine cows having tools, but we can't even fathom their use" - kinda like the Borges story, Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge[0]. On the other hand, I read The Far Side when I was small and didn't really have the scientific chops to get a lot of the humor, so maybe I cemented an incorrect interpretation.
It seems like the lesson we keep learning, no matter the proxy we use for intelligence, is that there is nothing that fundamentally sets humans apart from other animals (or even, in some ways, AI) other than the degree and scope of our intelligence.
While I'll never begrudge science that points out the obvious -- that's often where the most value comes from -- this particular avenue is always a little funny to me, as it often belies an expectation that other animals are unable to do these things by default.
> It seems like the lesson we keep learning, no matter the proxy we use for intelligence, is that there is nothing that fundamentally sets humans apart from other animals
Except it doesn't show that.
The reason people make this judgement is because they don't have a coherent or clear definition of "intelligence". Nothing has been undermined, except in those who took the view that animals are dumb automatons. That's more of a legacy of modernism and the desire to gain "mastery over nature" more than anything else.
The essential feature of human beings - from which the rest of human nature and its consequences follow, including our social nature - is rationality. This entails an intellect, which is the abstracting faculty. It is the intellect that makes language possible, because without the capacity to abstract from particulars, we could not have universal concepts and thus no predicates. Language would be reduced to the kind we see in other animals.
For clarity, the functions of language are:
1. expressive: expressing an internal state or emotion (e.g., a cry of pain)
2. signaling: use of expressive to cause a reaction in others (e.g., danger signals)
3. descriptive: beyond immediate sensation; describes states of affairs, allowing for true or false statements
4. argumentative: allows critical analysis, inference, and rational justification
Without abstraction, (3) and (4) are impossible. But all animal activity we have observed requires no appeal to (3) and (4). Non-human animals perceive objects and can manipulate them, even in very clever ways, but they do not have concepts (which are expressed as general names).
Could there be other rational animals in the universe? Sure. But we haven't met any. And from an ontological POV (as opposed to a phylogenetic taxonomic classification), they would be human, as the ontological definition of "human being" - "rational animal" - would apply them.
It's noteworthy to me that every scientific discovery is that non-human animals are "more clever than we thought" - and never ever the other way around.
Koalas are the one that springs to mind. I believe the test result was "does not recognize their only food source (eucalyptus leaves) when served plated."
the researcher documented a cow using a stick to scratch itself. no doubt they're intelligent animals but describing them as using 'sophisticated tools' is a bit of a stretch.
this behaviour is quite common in cattle and other animals, often seen rubbing or using sticks to scratch spots. sometimes it is dangerous as they find fences with nail poking out and cut themselves when rubbing to to calm an itch.
"This behavior is quite common..." is very misleading. This specific behavior is not common. Scratching an itch does not equal using a tool to scratch an itch. Every animal I've seen in nature knows how to use external static objects to help them scratch somewhere they can't reach. Dogs cats, bears, pigs, cows... etc. I think my cats are very intelligent, I've seen them use the bristle brush attachment we have on the wall to scratch themselves. If I ever watched one of them pick up a fork with their mouth and orient it in a way to scratch their back I would absolutely lose my mind. These are not the same behaviors.
If your cats picked up a fork, it would be to eat you after they killed you in your sleep; but, I could see how that could be considered “scratching an itch.”
I've seen my cats pull on a cord in order to reel in the toy at the end. I don't find that to be all too different from the cow orienting a scratcher. Should I?
Idk I guess that's really up for you to decide. My opinion is that behavior seems very uhhh instinctual? Like if they were eating something that was running away from them I'm sure they would employ a similar tactic/behavior. Thing far away from me I need it closer. The logical steps to use a tool that would have 0 instinctual context seems leaps and bounds more "complex". I'm no animal/evolutionary scientist, just my opinion. It very well could be!
Having spent my childhood around cows, I can say there's a great deal of doubt in my mind on that point. I know from extensive first-hand experience that cows are quite stupid.
I have Cows and Pigs, raised for show and meat. I would not call either animal "intelligent". I would call them stupid determined. They have all the time in the world to push, pull, grab and generally implement mayhem.
Having spent my entire life around cows I can say there's a great deal of evidence that cows are quite intelligent. Most of the time when people say they're dumb it's because they're hindering a human from forcing them to do something. Why should a cow "know" to go one way or the other or to not stop in a chute, or to not back up...these are just human constraints. We know what we WANT the cow to do and if they don't do that they're dumb. Sure I've seen cows do dumb things. If I was an outside observer looking at the severity and frequency that humans do dumb things I would come to the same conclusion, they're dumb.
I'm with both of you. Growing up on a beef farm taught me that cows can be very dumb (no, you can't walk through the barbed wire, and no, you can't get to the water in the cistern without falling in and drowning) but also do show intelligence in some ways (the personal vendetta against the veterinarian's truck, or seeing their best friend in spring pastures and absolutely going apeshit).
I never interpreted the Cow Tools strip as saying "cows are too dumb to use tools", but more along the lines of "imagine cows having tools, but we can't even fathom their use" - kinda like the Borges story, Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge[0]. On the other hand, I read The Far Side when I was small and didn't really have the scientific chops to get a lot of the humor, so maybe I cemented an incorrect interpretation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevole...
Wikipedia has illustrations of the tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_tools
I knew it.
It seems like the lesson we keep learning, no matter the proxy we use for intelligence, is that there is nothing that fundamentally sets humans apart from other animals (or even, in some ways, AI) other than the degree and scope of our intelligence.
While I'll never begrudge science that points out the obvious -- that's often where the most value comes from -- this particular avenue is always a little funny to me, as it often belies an expectation that other animals are unable to do these things by default.
> It seems like the lesson we keep learning, no matter the proxy we use for intelligence, is that there is nothing that fundamentally sets humans apart from other animals
Except it doesn't show that.
The reason people make this judgement is because they don't have a coherent or clear definition of "intelligence". Nothing has been undermined, except in those who took the view that animals are dumb automatons. That's more of a legacy of modernism and the desire to gain "mastery over nature" more than anything else.
The essential feature of human beings - from which the rest of human nature and its consequences follow, including our social nature - is rationality. This entails an intellect, which is the abstracting faculty. It is the intellect that makes language possible, because without the capacity to abstract from particulars, we could not have universal concepts and thus no predicates. Language would be reduced to the kind we see in other animals.
For clarity, the functions of language are:
1. expressive: expressing an internal state or emotion (e.g., a cry of pain)
2. signaling: use of expressive to cause a reaction in others (e.g., danger signals)
3. descriptive: beyond immediate sensation; describes states of affairs, allowing for true or false statements
4. argumentative: allows critical analysis, inference, and rational justification
Without abstraction, (3) and (4) are impossible. But all animal activity we have observed requires no appeal to (3) and (4). Non-human animals perceive objects and can manipulate them, even in very clever ways, but they do not have concepts (which are expressed as general names).
Could there be other rational animals in the universe? Sure. But we haven't met any. And from an ontological POV (as opposed to a phylogenetic taxonomic classification), they would be human, as the ontological definition of "human being" - "rational animal" - would apply them.
The primal separation of man and animals has not changed since the invention of the device...
Animals fear motorized vacuum cleaners.
The Guardian has a photo and a video: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/jan/19/back-scratch...
OK I think all pasture raised cows should be given nice little wooden brooms going forward.
It's noteworthy to me that every scientific discovery is that non-human animals are "more clever than we thought" - and never ever the other way around.
I've seen a couple "Koalas are even dumber than we thought" articles
Poor lads really are exceptionally dumb
Koalas are the one that springs to mind. I believe the test result was "does not recognize their only food source (eucalyptus leaves) when served plated."
Cows watch sunsets man!
Cows have best friends.
cows also seem to enjoy music
Cow General Intelligence (CGI) when?
does Cordyceps use tools?
Fungi.
AFAIK, fungi have never used mechanical tools.
They can solve complex algos using parallel processing, but no tools. Unless you consider zombie ants to be a tool...
That definitely counts!
Privacy Badger blocked 75 trackers on their site :O
the researcher documented a cow using a stick to scratch itself. no doubt they're intelligent animals but describing them as using 'sophisticated tools' is a bit of a stretch.
this behaviour is quite common in cattle and other animals, often seen rubbing or using sticks to scratch spots. sometimes it is dangerous as they find fences with nail poking out and cut themselves when rubbing to to calm an itch.
"This behavior is quite common..." is very misleading. This specific behavior is not common. Scratching an itch does not equal using a tool to scratch an itch. Every animal I've seen in nature knows how to use external static objects to help them scratch somewhere they can't reach. Dogs cats, bears, pigs, cows... etc. I think my cats are very intelligent, I've seen them use the bristle brush attachment we have on the wall to scratch themselves. If I ever watched one of them pick up a fork with their mouth and orient it in a way to scratch their back I would absolutely lose my mind. These are not the same behaviors.
If your cats picked up a fork, it would be to eat you after they killed you in your sleep; but, I could see how that could be considered “scratching an itch.”
Maybe that's why they try to sleep directly on my neck every night. Always plotting something
They’re not kneading you; they’re tenderizing the meat.
I've seen my cats pull on a cord in order to reel in the toy at the end. I don't find that to be all too different from the cow orienting a scratcher. Should I?
Idk I guess that's really up for you to decide. My opinion is that behavior seems very uhhh instinctual? Like if they were eating something that was running away from them I'm sure they would employ a similar tactic/behavior. Thing far away from me I need it closer. The logical steps to use a tool that would have 0 instinctual context seems leaps and bounds more "complex". I'm no animal/evolutionary scientist, just my opinion. It very well could be!
> no doubt they're intelligent animals
Having spent my childhood around cows, I can say there's a great deal of doubt in my mind on that point. I know from extensive first-hand experience that cows are quite stupid.
I have Cows and Pigs, raised for show and meat. I would not call either animal "intelligent". I would call them stupid determined. They have all the time in the world to push, pull, grab and generally implement mayhem.
Having spent my entire life around cows I can say there's a great deal of evidence that cows are quite intelligent. Most of the time when people say they're dumb it's because they're hindering a human from forcing them to do something. Why should a cow "know" to go one way or the other or to not stop in a chute, or to not back up...these are just human constraints. We know what we WANT the cow to do and if they don't do that they're dumb. Sure I've seen cows do dumb things. If I was an outside observer looking at the severity and frequency that humans do dumb things I would come to the same conclusion, they're dumb.
I'm with both of you. Growing up on a beef farm taught me that cows can be very dumb (no, you can't walk through the barbed wire, and no, you can't get to the water in the cistern without falling in and drowning) but also do show intelligence in some ways (the personal vendetta against the veterinarian's truck, or seeing their best friend in spring pastures and absolutely going apeshit).
Like most things. . . It's shades of grey.
This cow picked up the stick (broom) and wielded it clenched within her teeth. Quite different than rubbing against a static object.
Tool use by non-humans > Mammals > Other mammals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans#Other_m...
I like to claim that dinosaurs used tools, because some of them swallowed gastroliths. No reason a tool can't be internal.
Oh wait, the article says external is in the "scientific definition". Fine.
I swallowed a rock when I was a kid (ok, maybe calling it a "rock" is being a bit dramatic, more like a pebble), does that make me a tool?
....wait, no