1. Statements cannot be “proved” true unless they are just formal proofs in mathematics. (I am sure Jonathan Balcombe did not say “proof” as cited in Patrick Barkham’s article in the Guardian.)
2. We know apples fall down rather than up, not because of proof, but because the preponderance of the evidence supports it.
3. Ditto for the law of gravitation, which explains why apples fall: no proof, just supporting evidence.
4. Ditto for the fact that animals can feel: no proof, just evidence.
5. Ditto for the fact that human animals feel: no proof, just evidence.
6. The sole exception is oneself: each person knows for sure that they feel what they feel when they feel: No need for either evidence or proof for that. To feel something is enough. (We know that since at least Descartes’ “cogito.”)
7. But for anyone else, we know they feel because of evidence, not proof. Not even when they tell us.
8. I think Marian Stamp Dawkins is being more scientistic than scientific in her call for a “cautious” approach.
9. Cautious about what? About knowing whether it hurts if you kick a dog or a calf? Should we keep kicking till we have proof, or “scientific” evidence?
10. I would extend Jeremy Bentham’s oft-quoted words: What matters “is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” [The Principles of Morals and Legislation]
11. What matters “is not, ‘Can they feel pleasure?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” [which includes depriving them of pleasure, and of life]
12. That is what should be governing our treatment of all animals, human and nonhuman.