Perhaps so, but it's hard for me not to extend that line of
   thought to humans as well. The "other minds" problem and even
   that of our own.

   From a pragmatic point of view, I find it useful to consider
   that animals think based upon our interaction patterns with
   pets. The reason why I consider that a pragmatic position to
   take is what human sometimes choose to do to animals when they
   believe that animals can't think.

   I have a human basis for this as well: Until 1984, it was still
   acceptable for doctors to consider babies as feeling no pain,
   because they didn't reason like we believed we reasoned and were
   operating purely on instinct alone.

   I believe that was a wrong approach. Many awful surgeries were
   done to babies in the history of 20th century medicine based
   upon this rationalization without anesthesia. "They don't think"
   was what they believed.

   So pragmatically speaking, I can say without hesitations:
   animals think and reason. It leads to healthier social
   consequences imo.

   I may never know if it's "absolutely true" but I doubt I will
   ever know _what_ is absolutely true with anything. The best I
   can do is act "as-if" something is true-enough and attempt to
   make the choices that have the greatest potential for the
   highest social good, as I want the human species to be a nice
   species.