In the world of dog training, the line between proven science and anecdotal claims is often blurred. The rise of self-proclaimed experts and anecdotal “proofs” based on pseudoscience poses significant challenges to those striving for excellence in this field. This blog delves into the importance of allowing true science to guide and improve our work as dog trainers while addressing the risks posed by pseudoscientific practices.
The role of science in dog training
Dog training is a blend of art and science. It requires intuition, observation, and skill, but it must also rely on a solid foundation of evidence-based practices. Science allows us to understand canine behavior, refine our techniques, and improve outcomes in training and operational contexts. However, as science evolves, it often takes time to explain phenomena that we observe or experience. This delay can create a gap where pseudoscience often steps in, filling the void with narratives that appear convincing but lack proper validation.
One of the critical roles of science is to separate what works from what merely appears to work. For example, in the K9 tracking community, the infamous story of Clever Hans serves as a cautionary tale. Clever Hans was a horse thought to possess remarkable intelligence, capable of solving math problems. It was later revealed that Hans was responding to subtle, unconscious cues from his handler rather than solving the problems himself. This highlights the importance of rigorous testing and skepticism in evaluating claims.
The dangers of pseudoscience in K9 work
Today, pseudoscience is more prevalent than ever, particularly on the internet. Self-proclaimed experts often showcase anecdotal successes as “proof” of their techniques, bolstered by pseudoscientific explanations. Sometimes, this may be harmless, such as when hobbyists engage in dog training as a sport or bonding activity. However, the stakes become much higher when such individuals venture into operational contexts, such as assisting police with missing persons or murder investigations.
For professional police and military tracking dog handlers, the challenges of hard-surface tracking are well understood. It is a highly specialized skill that requires a deep understanding of scent theory, environmental factors, and handler-dog communication. Unfortunately, internet trainers now offer hard-surface tracking courses based on self-designed methods, often without the rigor or expertise necessary for real-world applications. The problem escalates when these individuals advise on actual investigations, potentially leading law enforcement astray based on unverified techniques and assumptions.
“Beware of those who claim ‘the Truth’”
A common thread among pseudoscientific claims is the presentation of a singular, unchanging “Truth” with a capital T. This approach discourages questioning and critical thinking, which are the cornerstones of scientific inquiry. On the other hand, science operates on the premise of humility and continuous improvement. It acknowledges that what we know today may evolve with new evidence.
As Bob Bailey wisely said, “Skepticism is a friend, not an enemy.” Following science means questioning, testing, and revising our understanding as new data emerges. It is essential to distinguish between anecdotal evidence and scientifically validated findings. Anecdotes may inspire exploration, but they cannot replace the rigor of controlled studies and peer-reviewed research.
A call for responsibility in the K9 community
The K9 training community has a responsibility to set a high standard for itself. While it is entirely valid for individuals to pursue dog training as a sport or hobby, those involved in operational work must adhere to evidence-based practices. The consequences of pseudoscientific approaches in real-world scenarios can be dire, potentially jeopardizing lives or compromising investigations.
To foster growth and integrity within the community, we must:
1. Promote science-based training: Encourage trainers to rely on proven methodologies backed by research rather than anecdotal success stories or unverified techniques.
2. Engage in respectful dialogue: Open communication and constructive debate are essential. Differing opinions should be welcomed as long as they are expressed respectfully and grounded in facts.
3. Encourage critical thinking: Trainers should be taught to question the validity of techniques and to recognize the hallmarks of pseudoscience, such as lack of transparency, resistance to critique, and reliance on anecdotal evidence.
4. Support continuing education: Science evolves, and so should we. Ongoing education and collaboration with experts in canine behavior, psychology, and other relevant fields are vital for staying ahead.
Moving forward: balancing skepticism and openness
Science is not perfect because humans practice it, and humans are fallible. However, it remains our best tool for uncovering truths and improving practices in dog training. Skepticism should not be feared but embraced to ensure we remain on the right track. At the same time, we must be open to new evidence and perspectives, even if they challenge our existing beliefs. The key is to strike a balance: remain skeptical of bold claims without evidence but stay open to ideas that are rigorously tested and supported by data. As trainers and handlers, we owe it to ourselves, our dogs, and the people we serve to prioritize truth over convenience or popularity.
Trainers often ask me for examples of pseudoscience in dog training.
Here are a few key examples:
1. Workshops and courses on cognition:
Many short workshops and instructor courses claim to teach canine cognition in just a few days. However, understanding cognition is a complex and nuanced field that takes years of study, research, and experience to grasp. Even among experts, there are ongoing debates about the reliability and interpretation of observations. Attempting to distill such a complex subject into a weekend course risks oversimplifying the science and spreading misinformation.
1. Hard surface tracking on trainer scent:
In some cases, dogs are trained to track on hard surfaces, but the trainer lays their own track, collects the dog, and then works the same track. This can create a false sense of achievement, as trainers convince themselves their dog is performing flawlessly. In reality, the dog may simply be following the scent of its trainer, not developing the skills needed for real-world applications. Another common scenario is when the trainer lays the track, has the handler work it with their dog, and then follows behind to point out missed cues or give directions on where to go. While this may seem helpful for learning, it doesn’t truly test the dog’s ability to work independently or under real operational conditions.
If you want to evaluate whether your tracking team is ready, try walking a track yourself, hiding at the end, and waiting to see if the team can find you without assistance. Once they’ve succeeded, challenge them further by using unknown tracklayers for the dog and conducting tests in a double-blind setup. Only then can you confidently assess the team’s readiness for real-world scenarios where reliable, unbiased results are critical.
3. Misusing scientific documents and anecdotes:
Some instructors selectively pull from scientific documents, rephrase the findings to fit their own narrative, and mix this with anecdotal stories from their personal experience. Without conducting double-blind tests or working in real operational settings, they promote their methods as the “only way forward” and criticize the practices of police, military, and customs handlers. This misuse of science, combined with a lack of operational credibility, causes confusion and promotes unproven techniques.
4. Avoiding double-blind detection training:
I’ve encountered trainers who avoid working double-blind, and for me, that raises a big question mark. In real operational work—whether it’s in the field, during certifications, or any high-pressure context—everything operates under double-blind conditions. If a trainer doesn’t dare to put themselves in that position during training, how can they prepare their dog and themselves for real-world readiness? Double-blind training is critical for ensuring the reliability of both the dog and the handler, and skipping this step undermines the foundation of true operational performance.
A personal perspective
For me, as someone deeply invested in the science of dog training, I choose to engage in respectful dialogue rather than shutting down differing opinions. Blocking people or avoiding difficult conversations does little to advance our understanding or improve our methods. However, I expect the same respect in return. Communication must remain constructive and grounded in facts rather than emotion or bias. Dog training is a journey of growth, both for the handler and the dog. Allowing science to guide this journey ensures that we are moving in the right direction, not just repeating mistakes or falling victim to the allure of pseudoscience. Together, we can elevate the field of K9 training by embracing evidence-based practices, fostering open dialogue, and remaining committed to continuous improvement.
Conclusion: science as a guiding Light
Science provides us with a guiding light in the ever-evolving dog training world. It helps us separate fact from fiction and ensures we make decisions based on evidence rather than anecdotes. While skepticism is necessary, it must be balanced with openness and humility. We can build a stronger, more informed K9 training community by prioritizing science and fostering respectful dialogue.
Remember that science is not about claiming to hold “The Truth” but seeking truth through inquiry, evidence, and collaboration. This mindset will improve our training methods and strengthen our community, ensuring that we are prepared to meet the challenges of the future with confidence and integrity.
