You just argued that, because some animals display errors in reasoning, we can call into doubt the claim that any animal reasons. This does not follow. The reflection test, for example, is passed by some animals; we can test it by putting a red dot on their face and seeing if they mess with it. Either way, it’s not even a test of general reasoning abilities. I think you’re giving animals far too little credit.
I believe the claim that some animals can reason is a very reasonable hypothesis, while the claim that no animals can reason is an unlikely one. The contradictory evidence you cite is pointing at some animals doing dumb things. Those animals can be as dumb as rocks and it wouldn’t matter for my claim, I’d only need to show you one reasoning animal to prove it.
Not to mention all of the developments in mirror testing to account for differences in perception. What they're finding is that self-recognition is more common than assumed.
