Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I've said all along there's something very fishy about a test where a dog has to be trained to recognize his master in a picture...
|
As you've been told before, the dog is not trained to recognize his master. It is trained to respond to photographs. |
The goal here is to see if dogs can recognize their masters due to light striking the retina and being decoded as an image in the brain. The goal of the experiment is not to train a dog to respond to a photograph. What does that mean if he doesn't actually recognize his master? It certainly wouldn't indicate that the eyes are a sense organ, and you can't use his cognitive ability as a reason why he wouldn't. The eyes should work like the other four senses. He can immediately recognize familiar odors, tastes, sounds, or how something feels. Why should his cognitive ability not work in the case of the eyes, yet work perfectly when it comes to his other senses? |
The goal of the training is to get the dogs to respond to photographs. What the experiment shows is that the dogs can recognize their masters. The training is not the experiment. |
The training actually backfires because it is assumed the dog recognizes his master but, if he did, he would not need this training Spacemonkey. He would show signs of recognition even if the controls had to be manipulated where the owner did not see the dog in a week's time, which would have caused the dog to be very anxioius to have some kind of contact with his owner, even in a picture. |
You are being purposefully obtuse. I explained to you the need for training, it is only to teach the animal to do something specific to indicate it's choice of photograph. Any human interpreting animal behavior, or trying to ascertain a state of mind, would not be scientifically valid methodology.
A human would need to do something specific to indicate a choice as well (you do it all the time. Ever taken a fill in the bubble test?) but researchers can simply explain it to them "Bush this button or that button" or "Point" or whatever. Animals need training because they can't understand verbal or written explanations. |
I'm sorry LadyShea, but this training should not be necessary to elicit a response in a smart breed who loves his owner and misses him. There should be some response, even a wag of a tail when that photograph is put right in front of him. Being trained to push a lever when his owner's photograph comes up is so unreliable, I can't believe you don't see the problem.