{{Short description|Optical illusion}} {{Tone|date=February 2021}} thumb|250px|"{{lang|de|Kaninchen und Ente}}" ("Rabbit and Duck") from the 23 October 1892 issue of ''{{lang|de|Fliegende Blätter}}'' The '''rabbit–duck illusion''' is an ambiguous image in which a rabbit or a duck can be seen.<ref name=MathWorld>{{Mathworld|Rabbit-DuckIllusion}}</ref>
The earliest known version is an unattributed drawing from the 23 October 1892 issue of ''{{lang|de|Fliegende Blätter}}'', a German humour magazine. It was captioned, in older German spelling, "{{lang|de|Welche Thiere gleichen einander am meisten?}}" ("Which animals are most like each other?"), with "{{lang|de|Kaninchen und Ente}}" ("Rabbit and Duck") written underneath.<ref>{{cite journal|title=''Science in the Making: Right Hand, Left Hand''. II: The duck–rabbit figure|first1=I. C.|last1=McManus|first2=Matthew|last2=Freegard|first3=James|last3=Moore|first4=Richard|last4=Rawles|journal=Laterality|year=2010|volume=15|issue=1–2|pages=166–85|url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/sites/medical-education/files/2010-Laterality-RightHandLeftHand-2.pdf|accessdate=18 February 2012|doi=10.1080/13576500802564266|pmid=19142793|citeseerx=10.1.1.602.8669|s2cid=14812167 }}</ref>
After being used by psychologist Joseph Jastrow, the image was made famous by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who included it in his ''Philosophical Investigations'' as a means of describing two different ways of seeing: "seeing that" versus "seeing as".
== Correlations == Whether one sees a rabbit or a duck, and how often, may correlate with sociological, biological, and psychological factors. For example, Swiss, both young and old, tend to see a bunny during Easter and a bird/duck in October.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Brugger|first1=Peter|last2=Brugger|first2=Susanne|date=1993|title=The Easter Bunny in October: Is it Disguised as a Duck?|journal=Perceptual and Motor Skills|language=en-US|volume=76|issue=2|pages=577–578|doi=10.2466/pms.1993.76.2.577|pmid=8483671|s2cid=38354760 |issn=0031-5125}}</ref> It may also indicate creativity. A standard test of creativity is to list as many novel uses as one can for an everyday object (e.g., a paper clip) in a limited time. Wiseman et al. found that participants who easily could see the image as either a rabbit or duck came up with an average of about 5 novel uses for their everyday item, while those who could not flip between rabbit and duck at all came up with fewer than 2 novel uses.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wiseman|first1=Richard|last2=Watt|first2=Caroline|last3=Gilhooly|first3=Kenneth|last4=Georgiou|first4=George|date=2011|title=Creativity and ease of ambiguous figural reversal|journal=British Journal of Psychology|language=en|volume=102|issue=3|pages=615–622|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02031.x|pmid=21752010 |issn=2044-8295|url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/15023489/DuckRabbitBJPFinalAuthorVersion.pdf|hdl=20.500.11820/70d9fe08-d869-458f-95fe-1ca7d7150a82|s2cid=20523020 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
== Philosophical implications == Several scholars suggested that the illusion resonates philosophically and politically. Wittgenstein, as Shirley Le Penne commented,<ref name=LePenne/> employed the rabbit–duck illusion to distinguish perception from interpretation. If you see only a duck, you would say "this ''is'' a duck", but once you become aware of the duality you would say "''now'' I see it ''as'' a rabbit". You may also say "it's a rabbit–duck", which, for Wittgenstein, is a perceptual report.<ref name=LePenne>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sapienism.com/post/what-do-you-see|title=What Do You See?|last=Le Penne|first=Shirley|date=22 October 2019|website=Sapienism|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=25 October 2019}}</ref>
According to Jonny Thomson, Wittgenstein's famous duck-rabbit illusion explains the concept of ‘aspect perception’. Even for the same object, depending on the observer’s conceptual and experiential framework, ‘''seen-as''’ changes as a duck or a rabbit, and we always immediately recognize the object ‘''seeing as''’ rather than as itself.<ref>{{cite web |last=Thomson |first=Jonny |date=24 January 2022 |title=Can a duck ever be a rabbit? Wittgenstein and the philosophy of “aspect perception” |url=https://bigthink.com/thinking/wittgenstein-duck-rabbit/ |website=Big Think |access-date=13 July 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250422153844/https://bigthink.com/thinking/wittgenstein-duck-rabbit/ |archive-date=22 April 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> Wittgenstein points out that the moment of realizing this perceptual shift is rare, and some people may be ‘aspect blind’ and not be able to see the other aspect at all. Ultimately, this reminds us of how fluid the way we understand the world is at times.<ref>{{cite web |last=Thomson |first=Jonny |date=24 January 2022 |title=Can a duck ever be a rabbit? Wittgenstein and the philosophy of “aspect perception” |url=https://bigthink.com/thinking/wittgenstein-duck-rabbit/ |website=Big Think |access-date=13 July 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250422153844/https://bigthink.com/thinking/wittgenstein-duck-rabbit/ |archive-date=22 April 2025 |url-status=live|quote=According to Wittgenstein, we should call these people “aspect blind.” Be it the distractions of their environment, a lack of prior learning, or simply some unknown psychological factor, but some people simply cannot see one thing as something else.}}</ref>
Norwood Russell Hanson has extended Wittgenstein's discussion into a philosophy of science discussion of theory-ladenness.<ref>Hanson, Norwood R. (1958). ''Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-05197-5.</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Matthew |last=Lund |year=2010 | url=https://www.academia.edu/226367 | title=N.R. Hanson: Observation, Discovery, and Scientific Change |publisher=Humanity Books |isbn=978-1-59102-772-0}}</ref> Thomas Kuhn, like Hanson, also used the rabbit–duck illusion as a metaphor for revolutionary change in science, illustrating the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.<ref>Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970) ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-45804-0}} chap.8, pp.84–85, chap.10, pp.113–114</ref><ref name=Kindi>{{Cite book |chapter=Kuhn, the Duck, and the Rabbit: Perception, Theory-Ladenness, and Creativity in Science|last=Kindi|first= Vasso|date=25 June 2021|title=Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays|editor-last=Wray|editor-first=K. Brad|location=Cambridge, UK; New York|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=169–184|isbn=9781108498296|oclc=1223066673|doi=10.1017/9781108653206.010|s2cid=237739793 }}</ref> ==References== {{reflist}}
==External links== {{Commons category|Rabbit–duck illusion}} * [https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2137#0147 The illusion in ''{{lang|de|Fliegende Blätter}}'' at the University Library Heidelberg] * ''[http://www.paulstgeorge.com/rabbitduck/ Rabbitduck]'', a sculpture by Paul St George
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rabbit-duck illusion}} Category:Optical illusions Category:1892 in art Category:Rabbits and hares in art Category:Ducks in art