corvus Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 There is an awful lot of hearsay in the dog world. Perhaps hearsay to those who don't have the experience of them. So, what, it's okay to just make up facts if you have experience in the matter? Are those with experience exempt from providing sound reasoning that holds up to critical scrutiny? That is exactly how hearsay comes about. If I had a dollar for every time someone said something that is erroneous about dogs that they had heard from someone more experienced with dogs than they are, then I could fund my own research. You don't need experience in something to recognise hearsay. You just need the ability to type something into Google and start nosing around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBo Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 [ quote ]insert text here [ / quote ] Excuse my ignorance but "insert text here" is that your comment or the quote you are wanting to address? Thanks for your response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBo Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Well done, Skye GSD . Now .... BorderBo - I know you can do it :D. Lol You'd think so, Erny, wouldn't you? I typed in {"quote"] - without the " " as instructed) at the beginning of a sentence of yours to quote and then at the end of that same sentence I typed ["/quote"] - without the " " - typed in my response to you and when trying to preview the post was given this notification The number of opening quote tags does not match the number of closing quote tags- I know it's me - I have tried it over and over! How embarrassing! LOL! ETA: Typo in first line - should read ["quote"] not this { symbol. Come on BorderBo - If I can do it, anyone can do it I'm not giving up, Skye GSD, though perhaps I should start another thread and stop hijacking this one with my IT ineptness! ETA: I've got it! Woo Hoo - to think that something so trivial could give me such pleasure! Edited May 13, 2011 by BorderBo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBo Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 [ quote ]insert text here [ / quote ] Thank you, S'n'T - it seems I've finally mastered it! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Yay well done :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye GSD Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Must have something to do with the prong collars we were wearing - knew there would be a consequence for non-compliance - just kidding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBo Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 Must have something to do with the prong collars we were wearing - knew there would be a consequence for non-compliance - just kidding! Oh, you're a wicked one!/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) There is an awful lot of hearsay in the dog world. Perhaps hearsay to those who don't have the experience of them. So, what, it's okay to just make up facts if you have experience in the matter? Are those with experience exempt from providing sound reasoning that holds up to critical scrutiny? That is exactly how hearsay comes about. If I had a dollar for every time someone said something that is erroneous about dogs that they had heard from someone more experienced with dogs than they are, then I could fund my own research. You don't need experience in something to recognise hearsay. You just need the ability to type something into Google and start nosing around. Results speak, Corvus. Whether you and your solid reliance on scientific proof like it or not, results speak. Results are not hearsay. And I said nothing about making up facts so I don't know why you brought that pearl into your post . Edited May 13, 2011 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff'n'Toller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) [ quote ]insert text here [ / quote ] Excuse my ignorance but "insert text here" is that your comment or the quote you are wanting to address? Thanks for your response! Sorry I was just tryin' to help you out with the quote thingy. :p I actually use the little speech bubble icon then type in between the tags so I don't have to remember which way it goes etc. I think you need a rich text version to see that though? I actually fitted many prong collars in my dark past *cue scary music* so I have no problem with this thread. Results speak, Corvus. Whether you and your solid reliance on scientific proof like it or not, results speak. Results are not hearsay. And I said nothing about making up facts so I don't know why you brought that pearl into your post . Couldn't agree more!! Edited May 13, 2011 by Staff'n'Toller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBo Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) [ quote ]insert text here [ / quote ] Excuse my ignorance but "insert text here" is that your comment or the quote you are wanting to address? Thanks for your response! Sorry I was just tryin' to help you out with the quote thingy. :p and you did, you did! I actually use the little speech bubble icon then type in between the tags so I don't have to remember which way it goes etc. I think you need a rich text version to see that though? you're speaking another language here! I actually fitted many prong collars in my dark past *cue scary music* so I have no problem with this thread. Results speak, Corvus. Whether you and your solid reliance on scientific proof like it or not, results speak. Results are not hearsay. And I said nothing about making up facts so I don't know why you brought that pearl into your post . Couldn't agree more!! ETA: And now my responses are in "quotes" - back to the drawing board! Edited May 13, 2011 by BorderBo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff'n'Toller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Disregard, did not work. :p Edited May 13, 2011 by Staff'n'Toller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 There is an awful lot of hearsay in the dog world. Perhaps hearsay to those who don't have the experience of them. So, what, it's okay to just make up facts if you have experience in the matter? Are those with experience exempt from providing sound reasoning that holds up to critical scrutiny? That is exactly how hearsay comes about. If I had a dollar for every time someone said something that is erroneous about dogs that they had heard from someone more experienced with dogs than they are, then I could fund my own research. You don't need experience in something to recognise hearsay. You just need the ability to type something into Google and start nosing around. Results speak, Corvus. Whether you and your solid reliance on scientific proof like it or not, results speak. Results are not hearsay. And I said nothing about making up facts so I don't know why you brought that pearl into your post . There is an awful lot of hearsay in dog training, just saying I think it was a general comment, people with experience can and do say stuff that later proves to be incorrect. History is full of these examples, it happens in science too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 There is an awful lot of hearsay in the dog world. Perhaps hearsay to those who don't have the experience of them. So, what, it's okay to just make up facts if you have experience in the matter? Are those with experience exempt from providing sound reasoning that holds up to critical scrutiny? That is exactly how hearsay comes about. If I had a dollar for every time someone said something that is erroneous about dogs that they had heard from someone more experienced with dogs than they are, then I could fund my own research. You don't need experience in something to recognise hearsay. You just need the ability to type something into Google and start nosing around. Results speak, Corvus. Whether you and your solid reliance on scientific proof like it or not, results speak. Results are not hearsay. And I said nothing about making up facts so I don't know why you brought that pearl into your post . There is an awful lot of hearsay in dog training, just saying I think it was a general comment, people with experience can and do say stuff that later proves to be incorrect. History is full of these examples, it happens in science too. Yes - it may well have been a general comment. But Corvus almost consistently discounts anything other than what can be written with scientific figures to back it. To deny experience and results and write it off as hearsay is IMO the wrong thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 ETA: And now my responses are in "quotes" - back to the drawing board! That's only because you typed your response between the quotation codes. The quote should go between the quotation codes. Your response/statement etc should go outside the quotation codes. Come on Bo ..... you're nearly there, . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) To deny experience and results and write it off as hearsay is IMO the wrong thing to do But if you kept a log book documenting your experiences and results, and made plans for your next "experience" to test your theory, and documented those results, you'd have science... It's the person who says one thing about what happens, but when a scientist actually follows them around and records what actually happens, the story or understanding that the person had - doesn't actually match. A bit like how people think there are more disasterous earthquakes happening now than ever before in history - when the record of earthquakes suggest they're happening about the same as always, but we notice more because there are more people than ever before living on the planet (and quake prone zones), and we have better faster ways of finding out about the damage. Edited May 13, 2011 by Mrs Rusty Bucket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I do not deny that there are benefits to science, Mrs RB. But I don't write down all else to hearsay either. That is not precisely what Corvus has said, but there did seem to be inference along those lines and given many of her other posts which tend to denounce anything that isn't substantiated by science, it's hard not to believe that's what she meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBo Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) ETA: And now my responses are in "quotes" - back to the drawing board! That's only because you typed your response between the quotation codes. The quote should go between the quotation codes. Your response/statement etc should go outside the quotation codes. Come on Bo ..... you're nearly there, . Like this? Thanks, Erny and for everyone for their patience! ETA: Finally! One of my blondest moments and there is no emoticn for that! Edited May 13, 2011 by BorderBo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Yes - it may well have been a general comment. But Corvus almost consistently discounts anything other than what can be written with scientific figures to back it. To deny experience and results and write it off as hearsay is IMO the wrong thing to do. Ahem. I do not discount anything that doesn't have figures to back it up. I'm not writing anything off as hearsay, I'm just saying it is. There is a difference. My point is that it should be treated with caution. Not ignored, but not accepted unequivocably as fact, either. It was indeed a general comment, thanks Aidan. As for results, I'm sure you have noticed that interpreting behaviour can be very subjective. "Results" could mean anything. There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Just because the method one person uses works doesn't mean that it is the only method that would work, or that "work" didn't include a whole lot of other side effects, or that "work" meant it was very effective or faster than other methods. Confirmation bias is another thing that is rife in the dog world. Discounting anything is rather short-sighted and hasn't been my way for a long time, now. Being cautious of 'facts' is. Drives my OH crazy. "Okay, are you stating that because you know it or because you guess it? How do you know it? Well that's not knowing, is it, that's guessing. Uh-huh, well when you're proven right I'll believe you then. Yes, I will say I was wrong and I will make sure the world knows how clever and attractive you are." I treat everything written with scientific figures to back it with caution as well. It's been drummed into me. Some of it is very convincing, though. ETA Saying there's no evidence for it is not denouncing it. If there is one thing I wish people with dogs would do it's question what they are told. I know plenty of people who learnt that the hard way, and their dogs suffered for it. That includes me and my first dog. Edited May 13, 2011 by corvus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) Or that head halters cause injury? Or that prong collars are a superior tool to check chains or head halters? There is an awful lot of hearsay in the dog world. THESE are a couple of things you wrote in your "claiming hearsay" post, Corvus. Head Collars can and do cause injury. I've seen the result. I don't need to sit down, log it, and try it again to get more injury to convince myself that the first time I saw the injury, it was real. PPCollars can be superior tools to check chains and head collars. I've seen the results. Again - I don't have to spend time sitting to log the results on paper to convince myself. I see what I see. Good results overall that weren't being achieved with the use of a check chain or head collar. IMO that renders the PPCollar a superior tool at least for that situation. NOW you're saying you made a "general" comment - yet you aligned that comment with some fairly specific things. I am responding to what you wrote. Edited May 14, 2011 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fox Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) This thread is bizarre. Or that head halters cause injury? Or that prong collars are a superior tool to check chains or head halters? There is an awful lot of hearsay in the dog world. Corvus, I'm not sure what your argument is? Whether or not a prong collar is "a superior tool" depends on who you are, who your dog is and what you wish to achieve. You don't need scientific evidence to tell you that. Nor is it "hearsay". *edited for typo Edited May 14, 2011 by SecretKei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now