If you consider scientific studies unreliable, why?
Dog Training Tricks - What Is The Best Dog Training Trick?
Recommended Answer:
I LOVE Science Jen, it is something that has always fascinated me and something I have always found attractive, in things that matter to me!!!
If it were not for Science, we would be in a much worse place as humans over all, but, Science has its place as well as its limitations.
When it comes to REAL life experience though, and in this case dog training, NOTHING beats hands on, first hand experience!!
I have a hard time understanding how someone, can sit in a lab and come up with theories about things they have NEVER witnessed in the real world.
It is one thing to make a theory about something and a totally different one to proclaim that it is a FACT, without having it tested in the applicable field.
Then you have the fact that NONE of the courses available today at ANY legitimate school offer anything that is strictly dog related, I have no interest in the study of monkeys, whales or chickens and I LOVE how those who specialize in them in school will then turn it around and claim all these ideas and theories apply to dogs as well.
No, there is no better way to learn then having done it in real life, having dealt with and trained hundreds upon hundreds of dogs and working them in realistic applications! Hope I helped.
Dogs - Training
- when training or bringing in a new pup or older dog i go by my instincts and kind of feel the dog out to get a sense of his personality and if he shows aggression or fear i try to work with him to remedy the problem.i treat my dogs as part of the family and i dont need science to show me how to go about it.i think new dog owners can get help by checking into new studies but with me i just care and show love and respect to the dogs and they do the same with me. i have had dogs all my life and we have had many over the yrs and they were all a big part of the family and will continue as long as i have them.
- Science is the foundation of everything we do (even if we know nothing about the science)
The rub comes from the fact that there is a hell of a lot more to Pavlov than just ringing a bell to get a cookie. Many want to think in terms of what sounds warm and fuzzy with little or no understanding of what a scientific term actually means.
A classic example is just mention the National Academies study of dog & cat nutrition and see how many thumbs down you will get on this site. - None. I've trained dogs for years and have seldom found that all dogs tran alike. Certain aspects are the same but I use my own style and it has worked fine. I'm not saying I don't learn new things, but I can't say science had anything to do with it.
- Some, but what I observe with my own dogs matters, too.
I only generally consider scientific studies unreliable if they're faulty- too small sample size, not repeated results, non-significant trends.
I'm also not influenced by reporting on research- I need to read the actual study. I can't stand editorialized 'science.'
I think animal science has a lot to offer the everyday dog owner, and TJ's right, there's a lot more to Pavlov than a drooling dog. - After becoming interested in the subject of nutrition (and a little bit about "global warming") I've learned a lot about how science and studies can be skewed and twisted. There are some really crappy studies out there, and yes, they get published in peer-reviewed journals - as long as they fit with the current thinking and what's politically correct. And when those studies get reported in the mainstream media, their conclusions can be twisted even further (even the properly done studies).
- I am always interested in reading the results of scientific studies.
However, when one is reading about them in the news, you have to recognize that the person doing the reporting may or may not be accurate, and may or may not draw logical conclusions from the study. I have seen a lot of them where the headline does not match what was actually found.
And you have to recognize that the people doing the study may or may not have set it up to give objective results, and they may have an agenda.
Ive been around long enough to see science change directions many times on a different subjects - frequently a full 180 degrees, so while I am interested, I take results with a grain of salt. :o) - Since I was a biology major of course science interest me. In terms of animal nutrition and illnesses such as cancer I tend to follow these studies closely from the major Vet Universities. These should be of interest to all dog breeders.
In terms of training? I have not found them reliable and I believe in my tried and proved method of reading the dog and training that dog accordingly. - I love science, always have...but if there's one thing I've learned is that ANYONE can say ANYTHING!!! Science is often not exact...or has multiple pathways to the same ends. This gives room for bad science and even junk science (think of the Acai Berry craze that has been said to do everything from cure cancer to babysit your kids for you yet has proven to be no more "good for you" than a blueberry).
Another round of bad science would be the example TJ brought up, lmao! They definitely found out what a dog needs nutrition wise. Their goal was to find a way to make a dog live fairly healthy while spending the least amount of money. That is the goal of dog food. Keep your dog alive and well on as little coin as humanly possible. But I have something for you to think about....if the AAFCO is so great...and their science has set up exact ranges all dog foods must have...what makes Purina One better than Ol Roy? They conform to the same standards of "excellence"...they're both approved as healthful foods for dogs by popular science. So why spend 40 or 50 bucks on dog food if Ol Roy is just as good? Hmmmm....bad science isn't hard to spot!
Science is a valuable tool in dog training, breeding, genetics, and nutrition. But remember that ANYONE can write whatever they want. I can literally write a book on how bad dog food is, how terrible raw diets are, and how dangerous homecooked diets are for dogs and have them all published. If Perdue wanted to sell more human grade chicken as dog food they could hire...I mean fund, 10 Ph.D holders say basically whatever they want them to say...that's the way it is. Ignoring that is...well...ignorant! Our nutrition for instance...the healthiest diet for human beings is a diet based on grains huh? You sure grains are good for us...or is the fact that the USA's backbone is based on corn and grains have anything to do with it? - Okay. I am NOT an @ss kisser by any means, but no one said it better than Greekman.
I can't even form a proper answer now after reading how perfect his is to this Q.
All I can say is I love Science as well, but hands on, do it yourself experience, there is no better when it comes to training a dog.
No comments:
Post a Comment