Dogs And The Scientists Of Behavior

My criticism of behavior, learning and psychology scientists/ theorists: they presume a known physiological process correlates and explain these phenomena. Yet, the correlation between "Behavior X" and that "Neuron Z" is not yet understood, and these “just so stories” mislead the reader (and ultimately dog trainers) into thinking these scientists know more than they really do. 

 

I noticed this several years ago reading a college level biology book. At some point, I exclaimed, “you don’t know that!” It was explaining the operation of the cell as if the processes were known. If they knew what they implied, then we’d have a cure for cancer and every other disease. Yet, this was how the topic was being taught.

 

I see this even in current lectures, books and studies on behavior, learning, and psychology: it is a lot of speculation. They present a veneer of legitimacy to these unproven connections. This leads to medical behavioral diagnoses and drug treatments, even as the drug manufacturers admit they don’t know why certain drugs do this or that.

 

Pavlov was trying to link the two, because it is reasonable to believe that physiology will someday explain behavior. But that someday isn’t to-day. 

 

There is no science of dog training. It is too soon to call it science. That doesn't mean there aren't effective ways to train dogs, just don't call it "science". 

 

Plan accordingly.