after perusing a number of threads, i noticed a curious trend amongst many members of this forum: the tendency to allege that humans are somehow superior to all other animals. yet in nearly all of these instances, no effort is made to substantiate this claim. i find this tendency rather odd on a science forum. homocentrism/anthropocentrism is rampant in most avenues of human culture and this is not wholly unfounded; after all, we are human. however, it seems misplaced when disciplines are striving towards a meta-understanding, so to speak, of the world we inhabit - and considerable progress to steer away from anthropocentrism has been made in the fields of philosophy, ethology, etc. while still acknowledging the inescapable necessity to anthropomorphize by virtue of the very inability to transcend our own human minds. and so i am curious as to how one goes about substantiating this claim that humans are superior - i am not especially interested in those qualities and attributes which make humans unique: every animal is unique in some fashion. moreover, i think fraggle rocker has articulated this aspect quite well elsewhere: www (dot) sciforums (dot) com/showpost.php?p=2222379&postcount=23 that said, please kindly refrain from citing such claims as: animals lack sapience, animals lack language, animals lack reason, animals lack the ability to form moral/social contracts with others, etc. these claims are highly contentious at best, wholly without validity at worst. (stephen pinker does not hold the patent for the definition of "language.") anyhow, this is my first post and so i apologize if i've placed it in the wrong sub-forum or have somehow violated any of the rules of the forum.