If you are reading this column, there’s a good chance you think about dogs and dog training. If you are a regular reader of this column, you probably spend more time than the average dog owner thinking about dogs and dog training. We humans are great at thinking. We like to do it and we do it a lot. We are creatures of reason and we have even gone so far as to define the ways in which we reason to make sure we have some good ways of getting at the truth of things.
But sometimes that very predisposition to reasoning can get us into trouble. We have a tremendous capacity to use our reasoning abilities in ways that hinder rather than help our understanding. In his book, “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking“, author Malcolm Gladwell details many mechanisms of our reasoning that enable us to make snap judgements every day based on what seems to be a minimum of information. It can be astounding how correct and accurate that near-automatic reasoning can be. But Gladwell also details how those same reasoning mechanisms can lead us to the wrong conclusions if we don’t engage in more careful reflection from time to time.
When it comes to our dogs, bringing our reason to bear in trying to understand them and enjoy our lives with them can be both a blessing and a curse. The truth of it is that many of our conclusions about dogs and their behaviour have been wrong over the years. Happily, there have been many wonderfully surprising things we have learned about “man’s best friend” as well. As we strive to have satisfying lives with the dogs we choose, we would do well to examine both how and what we think about them.
The age of reason
Reasoning is our human way of using knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or find explanations for the things we experience in the world. In general, there are three commonly accepted methods of reasoning – Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive reasoning. Each of these methods has their particular strengths and weaknesses and, not surprisingly, no one method is superior to the others in solving a given problem. Let’s look at each one individually at they might apply to dogs.
Deductive reasoning begins with a general rule or rules and applies them to a specific conclusions. For example, if all dogs eat meat and chicken is a form of meat, then all dogs eat chicken. The strength of Deductive reasoning is that it is a lot like math – 4 + 2 = 6. If we know that 4 is true and that 2 is true and that addition is true, then the only logical conclusion to 4 + 2 is 6. The inherent weakness in Deductive reasoning is not in the reasoning itself but in our assumption that general rules put forward are true and accurate. Look at this Deductive argument:
All dogs are descended from wolves. All wolves live in competition based social hierarchies called “packs” which have an ultimate leader called an “alpha” wolf. Therefore, since dogs are descended from wolves, dogs must also have competition based social hierarchies called packs with an “alpha” dog.
This seems a reasonable argument and the Deductive reasoning used is sound. What is wrong with the argument is that some of the facts are questionable. Science does not have definitive proof at this point that dogs are truly descended from wolves. Noted wolf researchers have suggested that wolves do not, in fact, live in competition based hierarchies but in genetic family units where the oldest breeding pair are considered “alpha” by virtue of being parents. And finally, there is no conclusive evidence that any sort of social structure is inherited without modification as a species changes over time due to changes in selection and environment. So this argument might actually sound more like Red + Banana = Heartbreak. What is critical here is that the general facts put forward to reach a conclusion be accurate and true. Deductive reasoning guarantees its conclusion. If the general rules applied to the reasoning are true, then the conclusion MUST also be true.
Inductive reasoning starts not from general rules but from specific observations and leads to a more general application of the patterns observed. For example, 17 dogs in our training classes responded well to the use of food treats and a marker to teach “sit” and “down” behaviours, therefore it is possible that this method of training using food treats and markers will also prove effective for teaching other behaviours not just with these dogs but with other dogs as well. The specific observations made with this group of dogs leads us to some conclusions about what was observed but does not provide a definitive conclusion. Unlike Deductive reasoning where a conclusion MUST be true, Inductive reasoning puts forward a proposition that MIGHT be true. The advantage with Inductive reasoning is that we are starting with observed facts; we know these things to be true. What remains in question is the extent to which what we have observed can be applied to form more general conclusions that are also valid.
Out of the lab and into life
So, Deductive reasoning requires solid general rules in order to yield solid conclusions. Inductive reasoning requires solid observed data from which possible conclusions might arise. Unfortunately in our everyday lives, particularly with our dogs, we don’t have the luxury of having all of the facts or all of the observations necessary to make good decisions. That’s where Abductive reasoning comes in – our ability to use the best available facts combined with the best available observations to come to the most likely conclusions. Sometimes our “best guesses” using Abductive reasoning lead us to brilliant new insights and other times they lead us totally astray. For all its usefulness and all its faults, it is the kind of reasoning we use most often in our everyday lives.
As I said earlier, no one of these forms of reasoning is likely to solve all of our problems. In fact, we use each of these forms of reasoning in varying amounts everyday. If we wanted to verify that a general rule used in someone’s Deductive argument were true, we might use Inductive reasoning to examine data to see if it were valid. Similarly, once we have done enough Inductive reasoning to apply the data we have observed to enough general situations, we might come up with our own general rule that can be used in other Deductive arguments to come to new conclusions.
Dogs and reason
One thing that cannot be denied is that there is a virtual ocean of information out there about dogs, their behaviour, and training. And here we should heed the words of the Jedi and “use our powers for good.” Our powers of reason give us the ability to sift through all of the noise around us and pull out the truth that can sometimes be hidden. But we can only do that if we are careful and aware of how we are making our decisions. When you hear something new or different about dogs or dog training, do you question it? Do you wonder if or why such a thing is true? The worst thing we can do is simply accept the word of someone else that we should do or not do something with our dogs.
I have found in my own journey to learn and discover things about dogs, their behaviour, and how best to teach them that there are some long held beliefs that just don’t stand up in the light of what science now knows about dogs. There is no scientific proof the dogs will work for us “because they love us” and yet thousands of dog trainers aspire to train without any kind of rewards based on the “fact” that this is true. How many other “facts” about dogs will we find are just as invalid? And what happens to our Deductive reasoning when the “facts” that many of those well reasoned conclusions are based on are proven false?
I guess for me, it’s just important to keep searching. The more I have come to know about dogs, the more I am aware of just how much I don’t know about dogs. So I keep observing, reasoning, forming conclusions, testing those conclusions, and then throwing out the ones that don’t make sense should I come to some new understanding. It’s the way of science. Physicist Lawrence Krauss once said that “Beliefs don’t change the facts but facts should change our beliefs.” There are many beliefs about dogs and training. And there are also facts. The best dog trainers and owners will change their beliefs when they learn the facts. As for the rest, well, pity the poor dogs.
We observe. We deduce. We reason. We form our conclusions. Then we should start again.
Until next time, have fun with your dogs.
Be sure to check out our Canine Nation ebooks in the Canine Nation store and join our conversation on Facebook in the Canine Nation Forum!
The first Canine Nation ebooks are now available –
“Dogs: As They Are” & “Teaching Dogs: Effective Learning”
In the Canine Nation Store!!! 
Photo credits –
Study – cdk 2007 from Flickr
B&W- leigh wolf 2009 from Flickr
I so enjoy your thought-provoking posts. In my journey to better understand these wonderful creatures, I, too, have taken many different turns. My current dog-training beliefs include, if you build a strong bond with your dog and communicate in a way your dog understands, your dog is more eager to learn and likely to do what’s been asked of him. From a human standpoint, I’d much rather work with someone who communicates clearly, treating me with kindness and respect, than some dominant oaf who places unreasonable demands, bullies you into submission and never offers a reward for a job well-done – not even an Atta Boy or pat on the back.
While I always try to stress dogs want to be dogs and are aware humans are not the same as them, I believe having a humane empathy (lacking a better term), a personal ethic of respect for living beings, allows us to not only be better humans, but to strive to improve and seek training methods that never purposely resort to causing physical discomfort and pain in an effort to teach those in our charge.
Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments, Deborah.
We all have our own journey to discover dogs. I’m glad to hear that yours has been so rewarding.
Thanks again,
Eric
…and I still have so far to go. 🙂
d