Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Incidentally, here's yet another study for peacegirl to misunderstand and/or ignore and/or lie about. Note that the study not only provides convincing evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their masters, it also provides convincing evidence that they can form mental images of their masters, which they can then match to the correct photographs.
No levers were involved, by the way. |
You can't be serious Lone Ranger. Do you actually think this test of the length of time a dog looks at the incongruency between the owner's voice and the photograph actually trumps careful observation? Why not observe a dog who shows absolute excitement when his master comes home from the service yet cannot recognize him on a computer screen. Why do you ignore this? The basic assumption in this test is that the longer a dog looks at a picture proves what is going on in his mind. This is an example of exactly what I was talking about; confirmation bias. Why not do a test on dogs that we know have a loving relationship with their owner to see if a picture of that owner will cause any kind of reaction. That would be a better indicator than all of these flawed tests put together.
Dogs Welcoming Soldiers Home Compilation 2012 [HD] - YouTube
|
One is a controlled experiment with measurable data and with methodology that others can replicate and your idea is not science at all. This has been explained to you. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.
You don't trust science, so you think their methods are flawed. You trust anecdotes which are worthless. |
It's not that I don't trust science. It's that in this case their methodology is far from accurate. Where is there any replication of the experiments that you are counting on for proof? I am not looking for individual dog behaviors. I said that I would want a test that would examine all breeds. If a dog started licking the picture, wagging its tail, jumping up and down, whimpering from excitement, or doing anything that would indicate some kind of recognition, that would be a pretty valid indicator. This has nothing to do with what I expect.
Quote:
This is not about anecdotes. This is such a crock of you know what! 
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Weasel. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.
|
No LadyShea. If a dog reacted strongly toward a picture of his master whom he misses, this would be a more reliable result than these flawed experiments you and Lone Ranger keep coming up with.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Dogs cannot understand the relationship between subtle differences which would distinguish their owner from someone else.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How do you know?
|
Quote:
|
Because it's never been seen other than science's artificial tests that prove nothing.
|
How do you know it's never been seen? You know exactly dick about most things, yet you think you know everything that has been seen on one topic, a topic on which you have a strong bias because your father commented on it? LOL.
|
So help me then. I'm trying to find any evidence based on empirical observation, not experiments, that show any breed of dog responding to a photograph in such a way that we would normally think of as facial recognition.