We don't need a Science of Animal Consciousness. On the Unexpected Insights gained from Walter Veit's A Philosophy for the Science of Animal Consciousnes

This paper is a critical commentary on Walter Veit's book A philosophy for the science of animal consciousness. My goal is to show that although Veit succeeds in presenting a compelling account of animal consciousness, he may have unintentionally undermined the purpose of such science. I argue that, despite the author's claims, his theory is not as empirically grounded as he makes it out to be. Paradoxically, some of Veit's arguments against his opponents seem to be double-edged. Still, I also argue that this is a necessary cost, as an alternative would be to succumb to a particular form of metatheoretical anthropomorphism. In effect, we end up with a surprising conclusion that we need many sciences of different consciousnesses, which seems at odds with Veit's Darwinian continuity assumption. However, this only goes to show that the book is well worth discussing.