What Is “Science-Based” Dog Training?

There’s a lot of confusion out there about how dogs learn, what we can do to help them, and what the science says about dog training. “Science” is a buzzword that’s often thrown around to add weight to a particular point of view. But real science is based on hypothesis and testing, and conclusions are drawn from the results of those tests. Starting with an end goal in mind and setting up a study to fit your desired conclusion is just propaganda. Or put more bluntly - it’s bullshit.

Anytime you see a trainer marketing their approach as “science-based,” you should consider their motivation for doing so. Animal behavior is indeed a science. But it’s not cutting-edge stuff. Our understanding of animal behavior has remained pretty solid for about a hundred years. Often, it’s a marketing term used to make the trainer appear progressive and evolved. As if they have some special knowledge others don’t. Yes, science is important, but no trainer has any unique claim to it.

In the next couple of posts, I want to cover the well-established and uncontroversial view of animal behavior science. This is the stuff that’s been agreed upon by biologists and psychologists everywhere. You’ll find it in textbooks for both subjects. Specifically, I’m referring to the topics of classical conditioning and operant conditioning. These govern the associations that animals make with their environment, as well as the behaviors they choose to engage in, respectively. Understand them, and your dog’s behavior becomes really easy to understand. Ignore them at your own peril.