Dog Training-Let Reason Prevail Over Force! - Roger Abrantes

13/09/12 Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force!
| Roger Abrantes
14
Roger Abrantes
Life is great!
SEP 10 2012
Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force!
(http://rogerabrantes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/553495_3335544991870_103164030_n.jpg)
“Whether you (or I) follow a particular line of morality is not a necessary consequence of any model of
social behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior). Moral stances are solely your (or my) decision”
(Picture by Lisa J. Bains).
The dog trainers’ dispute about training methods blazes on unabated, with the erroneous and
emotive use of terms such as dominance, punishment and leadership only adding fuel to the fire.
There is no rational argumentation between the two main factions, one of which advocates a
“naturalistic” approach and the other a “moralistic” stance. The term ‘dominance’ generates
particular controversy and is often misinterpreted. We can detect, in the line of arguing about this
rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/dog-training-let-reason-prevail-over-force/ 1/16
13/09/12 Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force! | Roger Abrantes
topic, the same fundamental mistakes committed in many other discussions. By taking the
controversy over dominant behavior as my example, I shall attempt to put an end to the feud by
proving that neither side is right and by presenting a solution to the problem. Plus ratio quam vis—
let reason prevail over force!
I shall demonstrate that the dispute is caused by:
(1) Blurring the boundaries between science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) and

ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics). While ethics and morality deal with normative
statements, science deals with factual, descriptive statements. Scientific statements are not morally
right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) or wrong, good or bad.
(2) Unclear definitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition). We cannot have a rational

discussion without clear definitions of the terms used. Both sides in the dispute use unclear,
incomplete definitions or none at all.
(3) Logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies). The opposing sides

commit either the ‘naturalistic fallacy,’ ‘the moralistic fallacy,’ or both. We cannot glean normative
statements from descriptive premises, nor can we deduce facts from norms. The fact that something
is does not imply that it ought to be; conversely, just because something ought to be does not mean
that it is.
(4) Social conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning) and emotional

load. As a result of inevitable social conditioning and emotional load, some terms develop
connotations that can affect whether we like or dislike, accept or reject them, independent of their
true meaning.
(5) Unclear grammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar). The term dominance (an

abstract noun) leads us to believe it is a characteristic of certain individuals, not an attribute of
behavior. The correct use of the term in the behavioral sciences is as an adjective to describe a
behavior, hence dominant behavior.
Bottom line: We need to define terms clearly and use them consistently; otherwise rational
discussion is not possible. We must separate descriptive and normative statements, as we cannot
derive what is from what ought to be or vice versa. Therefore, we cannot use the scientific concept of
dominant behavior (or any descriptive statement) to validate an ethical
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) principle. Our morality, what we think is right or wrong, is a
personal choice; what is, or is not, is independent of our beliefs and wishes (we don’t have a choice).
Solution to the problem: The present dispute focuses on whether we believe it is right or wrong to
dominate others (as in, totally control, have mastery over, command). It is a discussion of how to
achieve a particular goal, about means and ends. It is a moral dispute, not a scientific quest. If both
sides have similar goals in training their dogs, one way of settling the dispute is to prove that one
strategy is more efficient than the other. If they are equally efficient, the dispute concerns the
acceptability of the means. However, if either side has different goals, it is impossible to compare
strategies.
My own solution of the problem: I cannot argue with people who believe it is right to dominate
others (including non-human animals) as, even though I can illustrate how dominating others does
not lead to harmony, I can’t make anyone choose harmony or define it in a particular way. I cannot
argue with people who think it acceptable to hurt others in order to achieve their goals because such
argue with people who
13/09/12
think it acceptable to hurt others in order to achieve their goals because such
Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force! | Roger Abrantes
means are inadmissible to me. I cannot argue with people who deny or affirm a particular matter of
fact as a means of justifying their moral conduct, because my mind rejects invalid, unsound
arguments. With time, the rational principles that govern my mind and the moral principles that
regulate my conduct may prove to be the fittest. Meanwhile, as a result of genetic pre-programming,
social conditioning and evolutionary biology, I do enjoy being kind to other animals, respecting
them for what they are and interacting with them on equal terms; I don’t believe it is right to
subjugate them to my will, to command them, to change them; and I don’t need a rational
justification as to why that’s right for me*.
(http://rogerabrantes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/raabulldog1.jpg)
“I do enjoy being kind to other animals, respecting them for what they are and interacting with them on
equal premises; I don’t find it right to subjugate them to my will and dispositions, to command them, to
change them; and I don’t need a rational justification for why that’s right for me” (Picture by Lisa J.
Bain).
Argument
1 Science and ethics are not the same
Science is a collection of coherent, useful and probable predictions. All science is reductionist
and visionary in a sense, but that does not mean that all reductionism is equally useful or that all
visions are equally valuable or that one far-out idea is as acceptable as any other. Greedy
reductionism is bound to fail because it attempts to explain too much with too little, classifying
processes too crudely, overlooking relevant detail and missing pertinent evidence. Science sets up
rational, reasonable, credible, useful and usable explanations based on empirical evidence, which is
not connected per se. Any connections are made via our scientific models, ultimately allowing us to
make reliable and educated predictions. A scientist needs to have an imaginative mind in order to
think the unthinkable, discover the unknown and formulate initially far-fetched but verifiable
hypotheses that may provide new and unique insights; as Kierkegaard writes, “This, then, is the
ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think.”
There are five legitimate criteria when evaluating a scientific theory

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) or model: (1) evidence, (2) logic, (3) compatibility, (4)
progression, and (5) flexibility.
(1) Evidence: a scientific theory or model must be based on credible and objective evidence. If
there is credible evidence against it, we dismiss it. It must be testable and falsifiable.
(2) Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic): If a theory or model is based on logically invalid

arguments or its conclusion are logically unsound, e.g. drawing valid conclusions from false
premises, we must also dismiss it.
(3) Compatibility: If a theory or model shows crucial incompatibility with the whole body of
science, then it is probably incorrect. If it is incompatible with another model, then we have a
paradox. Paradoxes are not to be discarded, instead worked on and solved (or not solved as the case
may be). Since “Paradoxes do not exist in reality, only in our current models of reality, […] they
point the way to flaws in our current models. They therefore also point the way to further research to
improve those models, fix errors, or fill in missing pieces.” In short, “scientists love paradoxes,” in the
words of Novella.
(4) Progression: A scientific theory or model must explain everything that has already been
explained by earlier theories, whilst adding new information, or explaining it in simpler terms.
(5) Flexibility: A theory or model must be able to accept new data and be corrected. If it doesn’t,
then it is a dogma, not a scientific theory. A dogma is a belief accepted by a group as
incontrovertibly true.
Science provides facts and uncovers important relationships between these facts. Science does
not tell us how we should behave or what we ought to do. Science is descriptive, not
normative. In other words: we decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, not necessarily depending
on what science tells us.
Morality and science are two separate disciplines. I may not like the conclusions and
implications of some scientific studies, I may even find their application immoral; yet, my job as a
scientist is to report my findings objectively. Reporting facts does not oblige me to adopt any
particular moral stance. The way I feel about a fact is not constrained by what science tells me. I may
be influenced by it but, ultimately, my moral decision is independent of scientific fact. Science tells
me men and women are biologically different in some aspects, but it does not tell me whether or not
they should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Science tells me that evolution is based on the
algorithm “the survival of the fittest,” not whether or not I should help those that find it difficult to fit
into their environment. Science informs me of the pros and cons of eating animal products, but it
does not tell me whether it is right or wrong to be a vegetarian.
Ethologists study behavior on a biological and evolutionary basis, define the terms they use,
find causal relationships, construct models for the understanding of behavior and report their
findings. Ethologists are not concerned with morality. They simply inform us that the function of x
behavior is y. They don’t tell us that because animal x does y, then y is right or wrong, good or bad,
or that we ought or ought not do y.
The model I present in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense” is a scientific model

that complies with all five of the requirements listed above.
(1) It is based on overwhelming data, i.e. given my definition of ‘dominant behavior,’ one cannot
argue that it does not exist.
(2) The conclusions are logically consistent with the premises.
(3) It is consistent with our body of knowledge, particularly in the fields of biology and evolutionary
theory.
(4) It explains what has been explained before and in more carefully defined terms.
(5) It accepts new data, adjustments and corrections (the current version is an updated version of my
original from 1986). The model tells us nothing about morality. No single passage suggests that we
should classify any particular relationship with our dogs as morally right or wrong. You will have to
decide that for yourself. As an ethologist, I’m not concerned with what ought to be, only with what
is. Echoing Satoshi Kanazawa, if I conclude something that is not supported by evidence, I commit a
logical fallacy, which I must correct, and that’s my problem, but if my conclusion offends your
beliefs, then that’s your problem.
Therefore, whether you (or I) follow a particular line of morality is not a consequence of any
model of social behavior. Moral stances are solely your (or my) decision. It is not correct to draw
normative judgments from descriptive claims. If you do so, you either commit the ‘naturalistic
fallacy,’ the ‘moralistic fallacy’ or both, as I shall explain below (see point 3).
2 Unclear definitions
Having just pointed out the rigors of science, I must concede that the scientific community does
bear some responsibility for the present dispute in as much as definitions and use of terms have
sometimes been sloppy. Some researchers use particular terms (in this case ‘dominance’) without
defining them properly and with slightly different implications from paper to paper.
Wikipedia writes: “Dominance (ethology) can be defined as an ‘individual’s preferential access to

resources over another’ (Bland 2002). Dominance in the context of biology and anthropology is the
state of having high social status relative to one or more other individuals, who react submissively to
dominant individuals. This enables the dominant individual to obtain access to resources such as
food or access to potential mates, at the expense of the submissive individual, without active
aggression. The opposite of dominance is submissiveness. […] In animal societies, dominance is
typically variable across time, […] across space […] or across resources. Even with these factors held
constant, perfect dominant hierarchies are rarely found in groups of any size” (Rowell 1974 and
Lorenz 1963).
It explains a dominance hierarchy as follows: “Individuals with greater hierarchical status tend to
displace those ranked lower from access to space, to food and to mating opportunities. […] These
hierarchies are not fixed and depend on any number of changing factors, among them are age,
gender, body size, intelligence, and aggressiveness.”
Firstly, defining ‘dominance’ instead of ‘dominant behavior’ seems somewhat imprudent for a
science that is intrinsically based on observational facts. It suggests we are dealing with an
abstract quality when in fact we are referring to observable behavior (see point 5 below). Secondly, it
implicitly equates ‘dominance’ with hierarchy (social status), which is misleading because some
hierarchies may be supported by conditions other than dominant behavior. The use of the term
‘dominance hierarchy’ creates a false belief. Clearly, the terms dominance and dominant
behavior are attributed with varying meanings, a highly unadvisable practice, particularly in
stringently scientific matters.
As John Locke wrote in 1690 (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding), “The multiplication
and obstinacy of disputes, which have so laid waste the intellectual world, is owing to nothing more
than to this ill use of words. For though it be generally believed that there is great diversity of
opinions in the volumes and variety of controversies the world is distracted with; yet the most I can
find that the contending learned men of different parties do, in their arguings one with another, is,
that they speak different languages. ”This has contributed […] to perplex the signification of
words, more than to discover the knowledge and truth of things.”
To remedy this, I propose in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense” a set of carefully

constructed definitions that are compatible with behavioral science and evolutionary theory, whilst
paying special attention to the logical validity and consistency of the arguments. I’m convinced that
we would avoid many pointless disputes if all those dealing with the behavioral sciences were to
adopt such definitions.
Roughly speaking, there are currently two main schools of thought in dog training. For our
present purpose, we shall call them ‘Naturalistic Dog Training’ and ‘Moralistic Dog Training.’
Of course, there are various other stances in between these two extremes, including a significantly
large group of bewildered dog owners who do not adhere to any particular ideology, not knowing
which way to turn.
Naturalistic Dog Training (aka the old school) claims their training echoes the dog’s natural
behavior. They don’t provide a proper definition of dominance, but use it with connotations of
‘leader,’ ‘boss,’ ‘rank,’ implying that dominance is a characteristic of an individual, not of a behavior.
In their eyes, some dogs are born dominant, others submissive, but all dogs need to be dominated
because their very nature is to dominate or be dominated. They use this belief to justify their training
methods that often involve punishment, flooding, coercion, and even shock collars, if deemed
necessary, by the more extreme factions. For them, a social hierarchy is based on (assertive)
dominance and (calm) submission, the leader being the most dominant. Their willingness to
accept the existence of dominant behavior is motivated by their desire to validate their training
theories, but their interpretation of the term is far from what ethologists understand by it.
Moralistic Dog Training (aka positive reinforcement training) distances itself from punishment,
dominance, and leadership. They don’t define ‘dominance’ properly either, but use it with
connotations of ‘punishment,’ ‘aggression,’ ‘coercion,’ ‘imposition.’ They claim dominance does not
exist and regard it as a mere construct of philosophers and ethologists aimed at justifying the human
tendency to dominate others. Their view is that we should nurture our dogs as if they were part of
our family and should not dominate them. Therefore, they also distance themselves from using and
condoning the use of terms like ‘alpha,’ ‘leader’ and ‘pack.’ The more extreme factions claim to
refrain from using any aversive or signal that might be slightly connected with an aversive (like the
word ‘no’) and deny their using of punishers (which, given the consensually accepted scientific
definition of punishment, is a logical impossibility). Their refusal to accept the existence of
dominant behavior is motivated by their desire to validate their training morality, but their
interpretation of the term is again far from what ethologists understand by it.
An ethological definition of ‘dominant behavior’ is (as I suggest in “Dominance—Making

Sense of the Nonsense”): “Dominant behavior is a quantitative and quantifiable behavior

displayed by an individual with the function of gaining or maintaining temporary access to a
particular resource on a particular occasion, versus a particular opponent, without either party
incurring injury. If any of the parties incur injury, then the behavior is aggressive and not
dominant. Its quantitative characteristics range from slightly self-confident to overtly assertive.”
This is a descriptive statement, a classification of a class of behaviors, so we can distinguish it from

other classes of behaviors, based on the observable function of behavior (according to evolutionary
theory). It is clearly distinguishable from the statements of both opposing mainstream dog-training
groups in that it does not include any normative guidance.
3 Logical fallacies
A logical fallacy is unsound reasoning with untrue premises or an illogical conclusion. Logical
fallacies are inherent in the logic structure or argumentation strategy and suit irrational desires
rather than actual matters of fact.
An argument can be valid or invalid; and valid arguments can be sound or unsound. A deductive
argument is valid if, and only if, the conclusion is entailed by the premises (it is a logical
consequence of the premises). An argument is sound if, and only if, (1) the argument is valid and (2)
all of its premises are true. The pure hypothetical syllogism is only valid if it has the following
forms:
If P ⇒ Q and Q ⇒ R, then P ⇒ R
If P ⇒ ~R and ~R ⇒ ~Q, then P ⇒ ~Q
This mixed hypothetical syllogism has two valid forms, affirming the antecedent or “modus
ponens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens)” and denying the consequent or “modus
tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens)”:
If P ⇒ Q and P, then Q (modus ponens)
If P ⇒ Q and ~Q, then ~P (modus tollens)
It has two invalid forms (affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent).
The naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)is the mistake of

identifying what is good with a natural property. In this fallacy, something considered natural is
usually considered to be good, and something considered unnatural is regarded as bad. The
structure of the argument is “P is natural, therefore P is moral” or “P is natural and non-P is
unnatural, natural things are moral and unnatural things immoral, therefore P is moral and non-P
immoral.” G. E. Moore coined the term naturalistic fallacy in 1903 in “Principia Ethica.” It is
related to the ‘is-ought problem,’ also called ‘Hume’s Law’ or ‘Hume’s Guillotine,’ described for the
first time by David Hume in 1739 in “A Treatise of Human Nature.” The ‘is-ought fallacy’ consists of
deriving an ought conclusion from an is premise. The structure of the argument is “P is, what is
ought to be, therefore P ought to be.”
The moralistic fallacy (http:/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy) is the reverse of

the naturalistic fallacy. It presumes that what ought to be preferable is what is, or what naturally
occurs. In other words: what things should be is the way they are. E. C. Moore used the term for the
first time in 1957 in “The Moralistic Fallacy.” The structure of the argument is, “P ought to be,
therefore P is.”
(http://rogerabrantes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/raaandshakira.jpg)
“There is no evidence that dogs attempt to dominate others or that they don’t. On the contrary, all
evidence suggests that dogs (as most animals) use different strategies depending on conditions including
costs and benefits. Sometimes they display dominant behavior, other times they display submissive
behavior, and yet other times they display some other behavior” Picture by (L’Art Au Poil École).
The line of argumentation of Naturalistic Dog Training is: Dogs naturally attempt to dominate
others; therefore, we ought to dominate them. We can transcribe this argument in two ways
(argument 1a and 1b):
Argument 1a
(A) If the nature of dogs is to attempt to dominate others, then I ought to train dogs according to
their nature. (P⇒Q)
(B) It is the nature of dogs to attempt to dominate others. (P)
Therefore: I ought to train dogs by attempting to dominate them. (Q)
Argument 1b
(A) If dogs dominate others, then it’s right to dominate others. (P⇒Q)
(B) If it’s right to dominate others, then I have to do the same to be right. (Q⇒R)
Therefore: If dogs dominate others, then I have to do the same to be right. (P⇒R)
We cannot derive ‘ought’ from ‘is.’ Arguments 1a and 1b commit the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ Both
arguments seem formally valid, except that they derive a norm from a fact. There is no logical
contradiction in stating, “I ought not to train dogs according to their nature.” They are also unsound
(the conclusions are not correct) because premises P are not true.
There is no evidence that dogs attempt to dominate others or that they don’t. On the
contrary, all evidence suggests that dogs (like most animals) use different strategies depending on
conditions, which include costs and benefits. Sometimes they display dominant behavior, other times
they display submissive behavior, and other times they display other behavior. Even when particular
dogs are more prone to use one strategy rather than another, we are not entitled to conclude that this
is the nature of dogs.
Conclusion: whether science proves that dogs display or don’t display dominant behavior has
nothing to do with whether or not it is morally right for us to dominate our dogs.
The line of argumentation of Moralistic Dog Training is: We ought not to attempt to dominate
our dogs; therefore, dogs do not attempt to dominate us. We can transcribe this argument in two
ways (argument 2a and 2b):
Argument 2a
(A) Dominance is bad. (P⇒Q)
(B) Dogs are not bad. (R⇒~Q)
Therefore: Dogs do not dominate. (R⇒~P)
Argument 2b
(A) If [dominance exists], it is [wrong]. (P⇒Q)
(B) If it is [wrong], [dogs don’t do it]. (Q⇒R)
Therefore: if [dominance exists], [dogs don't do it]. (P⇒R)
We cannot derive ‘is’ from ‘ought.’ Arguments 2a and 2b commit the ‘moralistic fallacy.’
Argument 2a is formally invalid even if the premises were true because the conclusion is not entailed
in the premises (it is the same as saying red is a color, blood is not a color, so blood is not red).
Argument 2b sounds a bit odd (in this form), but it is the only way I have found of formulating a
valid argument from the moralistic trainers’ argument. It is formally valid but it is unsound because
it commits the moralistic fallacy: in its second line, it derives a fact from a norm. It assumes that
nature doesn’t do wrong (or what is good is natural), but there is no contradiction in assuming the
opposite.
Conclusion: the fact we believe it is morally wrong to dominate our dogs does not mean that dogs
do not display dominant behavior. We are entitled to hold such a view, but it does not change the
fact that dogs display dominant behavior.
4 Social conditioning and emotional load
The choice of word by ethologists to coin the behavior in English, i.e. ‘dominant,’ also contributes to
the dispute. Curiously enough, the problem does not exist in German where dominant and
submissive behaviors are ‘überlegenes verhalten’ and ‘unterlegenes verhalten.’
All words we use have connotations due to accidental social conditioning and emotional load. A
scientist knows he** cannot afford his judgment to be clouded by his own accidental social
conditioning or emotions. A defined term means that and only that. It’s not good, not bad, not right,
not wrong, and the issue of whether he likes it or not does not even enter the equation. As an
individual he may have his own personal opinion and moral viewpoint, but he does not allow them
to affect his scientific work. As individuals, we all have our own likes and dislikes because we are
constantly being conditioned by our environment. Culture, trends, movements, environments,
relationships and moods, all bias our attitudes towards particular terms. Nowadays, for reasons I will
leave to historians and sociologists to analyze, the words ‘dominance’ and ‘submission’ have negative
connotations for many people. When people, all of whom are subject to social conditioning, fail to
distinguish between the scientific meaning of the words and their everyday connotations, they
repudiate them, which is understandable.
Conclusion: a class of behavior that animals use to solve conflicts without harming one
another is what ethologists call dominant and submissive behavior. This behavior, in the way I
describe and define, exists (see above). You may not like the terms or indeed the behaviors, but that
doesn’t mean they don’t exist. ‘Red’ is a characteristic of an object that provides particular
information to our eyes as a result of the way it reflects or emits light. We can argue (and we
do) about the definition of ‘red,’ what is red, what is not, when it becomes orange, but we do not
deny that red exists. You may object to the name ‘red’ but objects will continue to reflect or emit
light in a particular way that produces what we call red (or whatever we choose to call it). A ‘red
flower’ (or a display of ‘dominant behavior’) is not an abstract concept, but a real, detectable thing,
whilst the concept of ‘redness’ is an abstract notion, as are the concepts of ‘dominance,’ ‘height,’
‘weight,’ ‘strength,’ etc…
5 Unclear grammar
Another problem is that we use the word dominance as a noun (an abstract noun in contrast
to a concrete noun) when in this case it is (or should be) a ‘disguised adjective.’ Adjectives don’t make
sense without nouns (except for adjectival nouns). Dominance is an abstract noun, something that
by definition does not exist (otherwise it wouldn’t be abstract), except as an abstract notion of
‘showing dominant behavior’ and as in ‘dominant allele,’ ‘dominant trait,’ ‘dominant ideology,’
‘dominant eye,’ etc. However, the behavior of alleles, traits, ideologies and eyes, which we call
dominant or classify as dominant, exists. For example, the question “Do dogs show dominance
towards humans?” uses the abstract noun ‘dominance’ as an adjectival noun instead of the more
correct ‘dominant behavior’. This can be confusing for some as it suggests that dominance is an
intrinsic quality of the individual, not the behavior. Therefore, I suggest that, in the behavioral
sciences, we henceforth drop the adjectival noun and only use the term as an adjective to
behavior. This is a very important point and a source of many misunderstandings and
misconceptions regarding the character of behavior.
Behavior is dynamic and changeable. An individual displays one behavior at one given moment
and another a while later. The popular view maintains the notion of a ‘dominant individual’ as the
one that always shows dominant behavior and the ‘submissive individual’ as the one that always
shows submissive behavior, which is not true. Dominant and submissive (dominance and
submission) are characteristics of behavior, not individuals. Individuals may and do change
strategies according to a particular set of conditions, although they may exhibit a preference for one
strategy rather than another.
It is the ability to adopt the most beneficial strategy in the prevailing conditions that ultimately
sorts the fittest from the less fit—moral strategies included.
Have a great day,
R—
______________
* This is my normative judgment and as such no one can contest it.
** The most correct form would be ‘he/she,’ or ‘he or she,’ but since I find it extremely ugly from a
linguistic point of view (my normative judgment) to use this expression repeatedly, I chose to write,
‘he’ though not by any means neglecting the invaluable and indisputable contribution of my female
colleagues.
Related articles
Canine Ethogram—Social and Agonistic Behavior
(http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/canine-ethogram-social-and-agonistic-
behavior/) (animals, behavior, dogs, evolution) 2012.06.29
Pacifying Behavior—Origin, Function and Evolution
(http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/pacifying-behavior-origin-function-and-
evolution/) (aggression, dogs, dominance, evolution, pacifying, submission) 2012.06.06
Muzzle Grab Behavior in Canids (http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/muzzle-grab-
behavior-in-canids/) (dogs, wolf, behavior) 2012.04.25
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (http://wp.me/p1J7GF-2n) (aggression, fear,
dominance, submission, biology, behavior, wolfs, dogs, genetics, hierarchy, social) 2011.12.11
The Magic Words “Yes’ And ‘No’ (http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/the-magic-
words-yes-and-no/) (dogs, training, language, punishment, SMAF) 2011.11.27
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference?
(http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/signal-and-cue%e2%80%94what-is-the-
difference/) (signal, cue, dog, training, behavior) 2011.10.07
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers
(http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/commands-or-signals-corrections-or-punishers-
praise-or-reinforcers/) (behavior, dog, training) 2011.10.03
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers
(http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/unveiling-the-myth-of-reinforcers-and-
punishers/) (behavior, behavior modification, reinforcers, punishers, operant conditioning)
2011.09.21
The Spectrum of Behavior (http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/the-spectrum-of-
behavior/) (behavior, aggression, fear, dominance, submission) 2011.09.09
Magical Formula (http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/magical-formula/) (behavior, evolution)
2011.09.04
References
Abrantes, R. 1986. The Expression of Emotions in Man And Canid. Waltham Symposium,
Cambridge, 14th-15th July 1986.
Abrantes, R. 1997. The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior
(http://www.dogwise.com/itemdetails.cfm?ID=DTB535). Wakan-Tanka Publishers (2nd ed.
2005).
Abrantes, R. 2011. Dominance—Making Sense Of The Nonsense. (http://wp.me/p1J7GF-2n)

Ayer, A. J. 1972. Probability and Evidence. Macmillan, London.
Bekoff, M. & Parker, J. 2010. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041638/ref=sr_1_2?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341324887&sr=1-2). Univ. Of Chicago Press.
Bland J. 2002 About Gender: Dominance and Male Behaviour
(http://www.gender.org.uk/about/10ethol/a4_mldom.htm).
Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C. 1990. Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). Macmillan.
Dennet, D. 1996. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon &
Schuster.
Dennet, D. 2003. Freedom Evolves. Viking Press 2003.
Futuyma, D. J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Assoc.
Galef, J. 2010. Hume’s Guillotine (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.pt/2010/01/humes-
guillotine.html).
Hewitt, S. E., Macdonald, D. W., & Dugdale, H. L. 2009. Context-dependent linear dominance
hierarchies in social groups of European badgers, Meles meles. Animal Behaviour, 77, 161-169.
Hume, D. 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967, edition.
Locke, J. 1690. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/johnlocke/BOOKIIIChapterX.html)
Kanazawa, S. 2008. Two Logical Fallacies That We Must Avoid.
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200810/two-logical-
fallacies-we-must-avoid)
Kierkegaard, S. 1844. Philosophiske Smuler eller En Smule Philosophi (Philosophical
Fragments). Samlede Værker, Nordisk Forlag, 1936.
Lorenz, K. 1963. Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Wien, Borotha-
Schoeler Verlag, 1969.
Moore, E. C. 1957. The Moralistic Fallacy. The Journal of Philosophy 54 (2)
(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2022356?
uid=3738880&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100774322461).
Moore, G. E. 1903. Principia Ethica (http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/).
Novella, S. 2012. The Paradox Paradox. (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-
paradox-paradox/)
Pinker, S. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
Popper, K. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.
Rachels, J. 1990. Created From Animals. Oxford University Press.
Rowell, T. E. 1974. The Concept of Social Dominance. Behavioral Biology, 11, 131-154.
Ruse, M. 1986. Taking Darwin seriously: a naturalistic approach to philosophy. Prometheus Books.
Thanks to Anabela Pinto-Poulton (PhD, Biology), Simon Gadbois (PhD, Biology), Stéphane Frevent
(PhD, Philosophy), Victor Ross (Graduate Animal Trainer EIC), Parichart Abrantes (MBA), and
Anna Holloway (editor) for their suggestions to improve this article. The remaining flaws are mine,
not theirs.
By Roger Abrantes • Posted in Animals, Behavior, Dogs, Evolution • Tagged Abrantes, Behavior,
Dog Training, Dominance, Ethics, Evolution, Fallacy, Logic, Philosophy, Submission
14 comments on “Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail

Over Force!”
Anabela Pinto
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 13:34
Great paper and a difficult one to. I am sure it will help to clarify many misunderstandings in
ethology and especially in learning theory.
REPLY
Victor Ros
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 14:39
Reblogged this on EQUILIBRE Gaiá and commented:
Plus ratio quam vis—let reason prevail over force! Fantastic critical thinking on hotly debated
topics in behavior science. Thank you Kaibigan for this wonderful piece which will surely help
guide us to reason and away from force!
REPLY
Joyce Gamsby Kesling, CDBC, CACBC
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 15:23
Reblogged this on Responsible Dog ~ It's all about dogs and commented:
Please respect Roger Abrantes Copyright
Add © Roger Abrantes, [Blog Name], [Current Year]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of
this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is
strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to
Roger Abrantes and [Blog Name] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
REPLY
German Shepherd Adventures
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 16:01
Well done! Whether or not the training divide will ever be closed, this needs to published as the
Magna Carta of a new paradigm of training…
REPLY
Jo Abrantes
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 17:53
Hi Roger,
I haven’t yet read this post, but I noticed a typo that you must be interested in correcting: In the
modus tollens line the first ~P should be ~Q (according to your notation).
Formally:
Beijinhos, Jo PS please don’t quote me because I haven’t yet read the paper.
Sent from my iPad
REPLY
Roger Abrantes
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 @ 16:59
Hi Sis,
Thanks. It is corrected now. If you already found a typo without having read the paper, I’m
looking forward to what you might find after you read it!
Beijinhos,
R—
REPLY
Joanne Moss
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 18:27
The Canadian Foundation for Animal Assisted Support Services is building The Human-Animal
Bond Global Gateway to unite people who care about what matters most. We would like
permission to include your blog link on our ‘Learning Communities’ page at
http://www.cf4aass.org/?q=node/204 to invite others to join this important discussion.
You may find of interest that we plan to build ‘Learning Communities’ to unite stakeholders to
facilitate progressive conversations which we hope will inspire sector innovation, for the sake of
the people we serve and the animals entrusted to our care.
For more information please visit us online at http://www.cf4aass.org/?q=node/219.
Our international vision is to ‘Unite people to co-create our collective desired future.’
What are Learning Communities?
Learning Communities are safe spaces where people come together to share information and
stories about what they are passionate about. Two critical attributes of Learning Communities
are building mutual trust and respect. Appreciative inquiries lead to better understanding of one
anothers differences which ultimately reveal strengths and existing assets in which pave the way
to identifing common ground. What begins to emerge are new possibilities in which to avoid
reinventing wheels and leveraging current abilities and capacity. This process can then facilitate
opportunities for new partnerships, optimized networks, and cultivation of shared resources to
merge overlapping causes.
Learning Communities are adventurous and engaging presenting emotional and social learning
opportunities which are inclusive and innovative; an important impact of building meaningful
relationships is that sustaining what matters becomes possible.
Innovation
Innovation is the process of overcoming the fear of the unknown and change; it is the pathway to
freedom and creativity.
Collaboration
We believe that meaningful collaboration incorporates five important phases:
1.An affirmative topic will be chosen for each of tghe proposed features.
2.The Discovery Phase will note and appreciate the best of what is (already exists).
3.The Dream Phase will impagine what could be.
4.The Design Phase will determine what should be.
5.The Destiny Phase will create what will be.
Warmest regards, Joanne Moss, President, CFAASS (www.cf4aass.org)
REPLY
Roger Abrantes
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 @ 17:01
Dear Joanne,
Please, feel free to link to my article. I’m glad you find it useful.
Greetings,
R—
REPLY
Steve White
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 @ 18:52
Brilliant and well-reasoned, as always, Roger. Now let’s see if folks can put their cherished
notions aside long enough to let the light of reason illuminate not only their own training
decisions, but their opinions of others’ decisions as well.
REPLY
8. PINGBACK: Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force! | MagCast Articles | Scoop.it
Bill Stavers
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 @ 13:58
Hello Roger, I’ve followed you since our first meeting at the second APDT conference in the
1990′s. A great piece. Thanks for taking the time and effort. As a dog trainer in Los Angeles, I
find there’s less insistance on “dominance.” Perhaps because there are so many billboards
advertising rescue organizations and urging people to adopt.
REPLY
Cheryl Huerta
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 @ 19:24
As someone who practices the ‘naturalistic’ methodology with my dogs and who is constantly
being attacked by those who choose ‘moralistic’ methodology for doing so I have to say I truly
appreciate this and couldn’t agree more how their moral view of dominance and submission is
the cause of most of arguments that arise when discussion preferred methods of handling our
dogs. Thank you Mr. Abrantes. However as it is said you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make them drink but in spite of my own personal experience with those who choose ‘moralistic’
methodology something tells me that this great unbiased work will be used by some ‘certified
trainers’ to ‘prove’ that the ‘naturalistic’ methodology is ‘wrong’.
Nonetheless this is a well done piece and one that I can support. I’d like to think that non-
combative discussions about the two opposing methods can be a result of this. Time will tell.
REPLY
dakota, founder of True Carnivores the raw food store for cats and dogs
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 @ 00:44
just use ‘she’; it contains both genders. (cheeky grin)
REPLY
Nancy Tanner
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 @ 04:46
great article… it astounds me that some people think ‘pain is appropriate and love is permissive’
Maybe because I was raised in the 1960′s, I think love and the relationship should always take
the priority!
I know you are a scientist, but it would be cool to take this great info and make it accessible to
the home/pet dog owners.
REPLY
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: iTheme2 by Themify.

Dog Training-Let Reason Prevail Over Force! - Roger Abrantes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dog Training-Let Reason Prevail Over Force! - Roger Abrantes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

13/09/12 Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force!

Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail Over Force!

I shall demonstrate that the dispute is caused by:

(1) Blurring the boundaries between science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) and

(2) Unclear definitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition). We cannot have a rational

(3) Logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies). The opposing sides

(4) Social conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning) and emotional

(5) Unclear grammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar). The term dominance (an

1 Science and ethics are not the same

There are five legitimate criteria when evaluating a scientific theory

(2) Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic): If a theory or model is based on logically invalid

The model I present in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense” is a scientific model

that complies with all five of the requirements listed above.

(2) The conclusions are logically consistent with the premises.

Wikipedia writes: “Dominance (ethology) can be defined as an ‘individual’s preferential access to

To remedy this, I propose in “Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense” a set of carefully

An ethological definition of ‘dominant behavior’ is (as I suggest in “Dominance—Making

Sense of the Nonsense”): “Dominant behavior is a quantitative and quantifiable behavior

This is a descriptive statement, a classification of a class of behaviors, so we can distinguish it from

If P ⇒ ~R and ~R ⇒ ~Q, then P ⇒ ~Q

If P ⇒ Q and P, then Q (modus ponens)

If P ⇒ Q and ~Q, then ~P (modus tollens)

The naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)is the mistake of

The moralistic fallacy (http:/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy) is the reverse of

(B) It is the nature of dogs to attempt to dominate others. (P)

Therefore: I ought to train dogs by attempting to dominate them. (Q)

(A) Dominance is bad. (P⇒Q)

(B) Dogs are not bad. (R⇒~Q)

Therefore: Dogs do not dominate. (R⇒~P)

(A) If [dominance exists], it is [wrong]. (P⇒Q)

(B) If it is [wrong], [dogs don’t do it]. (Q⇒R)

Therefore: if [dominance exists], [dogs don't do it]. (P⇒R)

4 Social conditioning and emotional load

sorts the fittest from the less fit—moral strategies included.

Have a great day,

* This is my normative judgment and as such no one can contest it.

Abrantes, R. 2011. Dominance—Making Sense Of The Nonsense. (http://wp.me/p1J7GF-2n)

14 comments on “Dog Training—Let Reason Prevail

Sent from my iPad

For more information please visit us online at http://www.cf4aass.org/?q=node/219.

What are Learning Communities?

We believe that meaningful collaboration incorporates five important phases:

Warmest regards, Joanne Moss, President, CFAASS (www.cf4aass.org)

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: iTheme2 by Themify.

Вам также может понравиться