I often say that my animal training is science-based but what does that even mean and why would that matter? 

Science-based means researched and tested for accuracy through best known scientific methods. Without testing and getting feedback on our methods, we can easily fall into the trap of cognitive bias[1]. 

Dominance theory was once science-based. Now, even Dr. L. David Mech who popularised the term "alpha wolf" back in the 1970s says[2] this term was used incorrectly. Wolves in the wild form packs based on family relations not on dominance. If someone didn't hear of the new scientific findings and only read the old study, he technically could still claim that his theory is science-based. Yet, that's not the case. Science is self-correcting. The beauty of it is, you need to stay on top of it to be sure no new findings shed a different light on the current understanding. 

Dr L. David Mech himself is now fighting to take back this term and popularise the current view on the wolves that have been studied and validated. There is still a long way to go as the view of ‘alpha’ wolves got ingrained into the culture.

"Nothing in science can ever truly be proven."  

With science, we shouldn't even use words like 'proven by science' as it implies that there is a finish line. Although certain theories stand the test of time and no new finding disproves them, still a part of the theory can change or the new understanding or fresh findings can influence the way we look at it. We might get to know it even better and come up with new solutions or new adaptations of the theory. 

There have been mistakes in science and errors still come up with new research. Unless the study has been replicated by others, we need to stay cautious instead of believing in it blindly. One study, even done in a systematic way can still hold biases that haven't been revealed yet. The time and future studies will show if the theory holds.  

For some people, the fact that science is changing and self-correcting can become an argument against it. "How can you trust science if it is changing and new findings can reveal major errors"? It is a valid point but if there is anything you can learn from science, the most relevant is the ability to not blindly trust your current knowledge and continue to test it and deepen it. There is no finish line in science. Every answer we get from science elicits even more questions. Even when we find that something works and the theory holds for years of studies, there will still be nuances to discover. Scientific theories that stayed for the longest amount of time are in some sense better than proof. It’s the most correct description of the physical world we can get that was tested and revisioned. Scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge we have[3]. 

A scientific law, fact and theory. 

Scientific facts are basic and simple observations. Scientific laws are generalised observations about the relationship between things. For example, "I have an apple tree in my yard" is considered a fact for someone who in fact has an apple tree in his yard. "The apples fall down and no up from the tree in my yard" is considered law as it describes the relation between two things in nature. 

A scientific law is a description of an observable phenomenon but it doesn't explain what are the causes of this phenomenon or why it exists. It states what can be observed and measured. The explanation of an observable phenomenon is a scientific theory[4]. Despite the widely spread view that something can be “just a theory”, in science that’s not the case. Scientific theories have been verified multiple times by independent scientists. If something is a scientific theory, it means it has been tested and validated. 

The laws and theories of behaviour. 

As Susan Friedman in her article “He said, she said, science says” says “The most fundamental law of behavior is the law of effect that states behavior is a function of its consequences.” 

The crucial point of behaviour theory is that learning is under the influence of external, environmental factors and that the laws of learning are general in nature and they work across the species and situations. It’s not “just a theory” as it was validated by independent researchers for over one hundred years of observation and experimentation with a variety of species and situations. 

As Susan says “Positive reinforcement theory predicts outcomes”[5]. The analysis of behaviour can reveal what was maintaining the behaviour and help come up with the solutions to influence future outcomes. There are many solutions available and to choose the right option, we can also check what science has to say about that. If you don’t think about the long-lasting outcomes of your action, you might think that screaming at your dog to make him sit, is all you ever need. Yet, science shows how many side effects punishment has on future behaviour. If it’s the outcome you want, you can also go with the positive reinforcement and get it without side effects.

One hundred years of scientific research in my opinion cannot be equal to what people believe is true without any scientific knowledge. “I had dogs my whole life” is not the same as “I studied findings from researchers across the globe”. It doesn’t mean that someone who had dogs has no knowledge about them! It means that his knowledge is limited to the dogs he had, to his understanding and interpretation of what he sees. It wasn’t validated by independent researchers. It’s one thing to try to win the argument with “because I believe it’s true”, it’s another to have arguments that are supported by independent research and many scientists. I love learning from people and I’m very interested in their life experiences but it’s not the same as independent studies. In my opinion, we need science for accuracy. 

How can a lack of knowledge about the theory of behaviour interfere with the interpretation of the observed situation?

Taking an example "my dog is more likely to sit after hearing 'sit' when I give him treats for it", people not only just observe the phenomenon, they also try to explain it in their own words. Some people say that the dog sits because he heard the word 'sit'. That's incorrect. The likelihood of him sitting is increased because previously, he was given a treat and he learned that under those conditions, the treat is available. The power is not in the word 'sit' the power is in what happened next. The same thing is with the use of negative reinforcement (behaviour increases when the aversive stimulus ends). The example could be “my dog sits when I scream to him ‘sit!”. The power is not in your screaming at your dog, the power is in the fact that you stopped screaming when he sat. 

We are constantly behaving and so are everyone around us. We are destined to form hypothesis about our observations of the behaviour. Our hypothesis can be tested by experiments and might be disproved. Your understanding of reality, even though it “makes sense” can be inaccurate. That’s why it’s important to go back to science as it can identify those inaccuracies. 

The guilty look on the dog's face. 

There are so many people who believe that the dog feels guilty when they have done something in the house - destroyed furniture, went through the trash or ate something forbidden. What is the fact in this scenario? You come back home, you see the trash can turned upside down and the trash is all over the kitchen floor and you see your dog with his ears down, big eyes, tensed muscles, tail tucked, lowered/crouched body, lip licking, turning his head, he can do all of those and more or only a few of the above. These are the facts that you can see. Your interpretation of those facts is - he feels guilty of what he has done. That's one hypothesis. Another one is, his body language is a reaction to your disapproval for seeing the trash out and for your body posture that can anticipate the angry reaction. That's another hypothesis. How did the researcher test it? They asked owners to leave their dog with a forbidden food item and come back to the room to check if the food wasn’t eaten. At some of the trials, researchers took the food item and the dog didn’t eat it but owners thought he did. Even when the dog did nothing wrong but owners believed that he did, he still showed the exact same posture that is often believed to mean "he feels guilty"[6]. Even when it looks like it and we see it "with our own eyes", there still can be a different explanation. It's not evidenced that the dog feels guilty. That's how he behaves when you appear angry at him and it increases the likelihood of you calming down faster. It has nothing to do with him knowing that "he has done something wrong". Without the research, there is no room for debate, it’s one belief against the other. With the research, one of the hypotheses stands and the other fails. 

How to choose between two points of view?

When I first started as a dog trainer I heard the advice that when you pick up the puppy and he is wiggly, you need to wait until he stops and only then put him down. The thinking behind it was, your puppy will learn to stay calm. It sounded legit and if I didn't hear a different explanation, maybe I just wouldn't question it. Let's think about what the puppy is learning in this scenario. He gets picked up by us, we didn't ask if he wants to be picked up, we just assumed that he should. The puppy might have been even whispering to us (as Chirag Patel calls it) meaning he backed away from our hands, turned his head away, lip licked and other small body language signals that we can easily miss when we think that "he just should want it". Then when he is in our arms, he can't whisper anymore, he needs to scream and shout. That's the wiggling which can further escalate to growling or even biting. So, what are we really teaching our puppy? We are teaching him that his voice doesn't matter. We are not teaching him to be calm, we take his voice away[7]. 

Now, you just heard two points of view. Both of them can sound valid to you. How can you decide which one you want to believe in? How many times do we just choose something that is easier for us to do? I would argue that that’s where the science comes in. The science doesn’t have to provide proofs that are once and for all to still provide the most valid information about the natural world. It’s what we currently know about the nature of things that withholds the biases. 

The behaviour is based on its consequences. When your puppy behaviour doesn’t give him the outcomes he was after, he will change what he is doing. He might escalate very quickly. Why would we want to empower him and allow him to make choices? There are many studies that support this view and indicate that by doing so, his welfare is improved but also that he doesn’t start to “rule the world” as the old dominance theory claims. Please check Susan Friedman’s article for a more in-depth analysis of those studies. 

Does that mean that you now have to read scientific literature to be able to make your mind about anything? 

No, not necessarily. Reading the scientific literature is a skill that needs to be developed. Otherwise, you might not only misinterpret its points, you might also miss important indicators about errors of the study. It depends on you if you want to learn how to read it or not. I still don’t do enough of it and I’m not as fluent at it as I would like to. A lot of my knowledge is based on other people who talk about those studies, quote them and share their input. When someone says something new to me, I will be more likely to check this information. It’s important to not blindly believe in what people are saying. If there is one thing we can learn from science, that will be it. New data can shed a different light at what we believed was true. And that’s a good thing! 

I have my biases, I probably don’t read enough of scientific literature, I base my knowledge on what other people share about the science and the meaning can get distorted in this chain. I do my best to not blindly believe in what I hear and I would encourage you to not blindly believe in what I say either. We can discuss things in a friendly manner. We don’t have to agree on everything and we can still respect each other’s opinions. 

Why I choose science-based?

I can observe the phenomenon in front of me with my own eyes and still come up with incorrect conclusions about it (an example of a guilty-looking dog). My feelings, beliefs and hunches are not the best descriptors of the natural world around me. Science can also be incorrect but it’s the best we have and the closest we get to the truth. The moment we stop our search for the truth is the moment we divert the most from science-based findings. When I say science-based I mean the most researched, tested and the most open for further revision. Let’s not look for a finish line of our search for the truth and better understanding of our natural world. Science can help us deepen our understanding and it will never be finished. You can learn to appreciate it rather than see it as its flaw. I hope you can join me in this quest. Our search will never stop and we can enjoy the ride.

[1] What I find fascinating is that one of the most prominent researchers on cognitive bias Dr. Daniel Kahneman (Thinking fast and slow) says that he can’t even trust his own judgement. His findings are conclusive, what we "believe is right" based on our hunches, feelings or even reasoning doesn't have to be right at all. He is quite pessimistic about the abilities of our own judgement, especially when “we think we are right” and that includes him as well. We can get better methodologies, like the ones he developed in recruitment, where the interview process is stretched for days and you test potential employees in many different scenarios rather than believe in your judgment in the interview. Hear his conversation on Sam Harris’s podcast: https://samharris.org/podcasts/150-map-misunderstanding/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU&ab_channel=eduweb  and https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#1dd18692fb1b

[4] https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20a%20scientific%20law,into%20laws%20with%20enough%20research

[5] http://www.behaviorworks.org/files/articles/He%20Said,%20She%20Said,%20Science%20Says.pdf

[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376635709001004

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zM8GzJy_kY&t=1590s&ab_channel=DomesticatedManners