03/12/2024
Yesterday, I had a fascinating discussion with a colleague about research. My own work spans qualitative and quantitative methods crossing the margins of disciplines, offering a broad and varied perspective on data collection and analysis that I feel is important for a comprehensive understanding. But that conversation got me thinking about how we approach dog training and behaviour in our industry...
That is, the focus often revolves around experimental and comparative studies—things like reinforcement schedules, the efficacy of various training methods, or behavioural comparisons across species (like, dogs and 3-year-old humans can do x behaviour in similar ways). While such empirical work is essential, it’s only part of the equation. To build a truly robust body of knowledge, we need the contributions of theoretical knowledge and philosophy. These aren’t optional add-ons; they challenge and deepen our understanding, driving progress in ways experimental data alone cannot.
Philosophy, for instance, provides the tools to ask "why" and "how" questions that experimental science might bypass. It prompts us to scrutinise assumptions and refine methods. For example, when evaluating dog training practices through an ethical lens, philosophy pushes us to ask critical questions like: What does “success” in training truly mean? Are our goals inherently anthropocentric? How do we balance a dog’s well-being with human desires? These aren’t questions a controlled study can easily answer, but they’re vital to the integrity of our work.
Here’s where my hobby as an amateur physics enthusiast comes in—a connection that might seem strange at first (and bear with me, I have zero formal education in this field!). Consider string theory. String theory is a framework proposing that the universe’s fundamental building blocks are one-dimensional "strings" rather than point-like particles. String theory wasn’t born out of experimental data but from a need for mathematical and philosophical consistency. Physicists sought to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, an intellectual challenge beyond the reach of direct experimentation.
Even though string theory remains difficult to test empirically, its development has spurred innovation like new mathematical tools, fresh theoretical insights, and even the framing of entirely new research questions. This interplay between theoretical and empirical work highlights something critical, that philosophy and rigorous theoretical modeling are not luxuries, they’re necessities for scientific progress.
So, how does this relate to dog training? Empirical findings—on behaviour modification techniques, reinforcers/punishers etc.—gain their fullest meaning when contextualised within theoretical and philosophical frameworks. Animal ethics, for example, helps us assess training practices beyond their effectiveness. Are we respecting a dog’s agency? Are our methods consistent with a justice-oriented approach to human-nonhuman animal relationships? These aren’t side considerations; they shape the very direction of our field!
It’s important to note that theory is not mere opinion. Theories are structured, rigorously developed frameworks built on logic, critical reasoning, and empirical evidence. Unlike subjective beliefs, theories provide systematic explanations that withstand scrutiny and inspire practical application. They create a foundation for advancing understanding far beyond personal perspectives.
Moreover, theoretical frameworks propel us into the future! Just as string theory challenges physicists to rethink fundamental assumptions about the universe, philosophical inquiry in dog training invites us to question concepts like dominance, agency, and well-being. It encourages us to consider that our current paradigms may be incomplete or even inaccurate, opening pathways for innovation and progress.
I guess my point is, theoretical knowledge and philosophy add essential rigor to our scholarship. They ensure that our understanding of dog behaviour and training is comprehensive—not just scientifically valid (which is important!!!) but is also ethically sound. Science isn’t just about collecting data, it’s about interpreting it within a meaningful framework. Philosophy provides that scaffolding, transforming raw information into actionable, principled knowledge that we need to be ethical in our approaches to teaching dogs!
