Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism are never far apart: the first is partly a "problem" due to the second. This is evident if one considers which description of animal behavior tend to get dismissed. Complaints about anthropomorphism are common, for example, when we say that an animal acts intentionally, that is, that it deliberately strives toward a goal. Ganted, intentionality is a tricky concept, but it is so equally for humans and animals. Its presence is as about as hard to prove as its absence; hence, caution in relation to animals would be entirely acceptable if human behavior are held to the same standard. But, of course, this is not the case: cries of anthropomorphism are heard mainly when a ray of light hits a species other than our own. ~ Page 65

. . . . Anthropomorphism -- the term is derived from the Greek for "human from" -- has enjoyed a negative reputation since Xenophanes objected to Homer's poetry in 570 B.C., because it treated the gods as if they were people. How could we be so arrogant as to think that they should look like us? If horses could draw pictures, Xenophanes joked, they would no doubt make their gods look like horses. Hence the original meaning of anthropomorphism is that of misattribution of human qualities to nonhumans, or at least overestimation of the similarities between humans and nonhumans. Since nobody wants to be accused of any kind of misattribution or overestimation, this makes it sound as if anthropomorphism is to be avoided under all circumstances. ~ Page 66

. . . .if anthropomorphism carries a risk, its opposite carries a risk, too. To give it a name I propose 'anthropodenial' for the a priori rejection of shared characteristics between humand and animals when in fact they may exist. ~ Page 69