Why This Surliness Towards Clickers (and other great questions)

When a person says that only one person is carrying on a cogent conversation with him and the rest of us are just attitude and wishful thinking, that would normally lead others to surly behavior.

The supposition that we haven't proven the basis for some of us thinking that dogs have symbolic language is just that, a supposition. And even if, later this day, we set up a lab experiment, the results could be interpreted a few different ways, depending on the prejudice of the observer. If you go in with a particular belief system, you may possibly alter the description of the evidence you see in order to fit with a pre-conceived theory. And that could apply to pro and anti cognitive. And we would be right back where we started. As I have already pointed to an incident wherein my dog communicated, seemingly symbolically, with 3-D coordinate info. To me, it  sounded like barks but it could have been canine GPS, judging by the response of the other dogs. But if a person is already of the mind that dogs do not have cognitive ability or symbolic language, though not enough, if any, research has been done to show that they don't have it, then any evidence is likely to be rejected as proof. And because not much has been done in language of dogs, much of it is and will remain anecdotal. Which winds up being a semantic tug of war.

In true science, it is perfectly fine to come up with an alternate theory, even one described as simpler or more basic. But viewing that theory as correct merely because it is describing lower faculty does not make it correct. One has to prove it, or at least, disprove the theory that it is to displace. I haven't seen where evidence has been produced that what we view as dog communication is, in fact, merely a series of tension and release, or that dogs are all that emotional. What we see as emotion might simply be behavior patterns, maybe in some cases, fixed action patterns that lead to survival. But I am not discounting emotion, either, even as I acknowledge my human viewpoint.

One has to set up definitions. Of course, defining language as what humans have with each other is anthrocentric and, IMHO, shows the peculiar myopathy of Man.

ron2

Of course, defining language as what humans have with each other is anthrocentric and, IMHO, shows the peculiar myopathy of Man.

Hey, Ron! We agree on something! Of course, that's just my opinion and may just be wishful thinking. But the surliness has left me. I wonder... should I try to get it back?

Dog_ma

least capable paw

Dog_ma,  I'm assuming that's the left rear... How can they tap dance without the use of  their left rear paw??? Surely they don't tap dance on their front paws!?!?! This I've got to see! Can you post a vid?

The original title was actually about surliness toward clickers and that morphed into the language thing. THis particular thread isn't a great example of good discussions that have been and can be had here.

But yes.You have a great question. I have been here a while and I think I do realize how these long argumentative threads can turn some people off. On the flip side, clearly, they also turn some people on.

I would suggest (to prevent a great subject being buried in pages of  "jousting and lots of self-congratulatory "inside physics" jokes";) you might want to start another thread, perhaps in the General Discussion section of Dog Behavior to discuss animal language, with an appropriate title. I think it would be interesting.

Sorry, for the surliness between some family members here. It's part of the deal, I'm afraid.   Welcome to the board and I hope you stay long enough to have some good discussions with us all.