It’s quite easy to find on the web and elsewhere these days, statements that something is “science based”. We’ve even used the term. Consider these examples: “Science-based dog training” “Science has proven that reinforcement-based training is better than punishment-based training” “Feeding dogs a raw meat diet isn’t scientific.” “Modern behavioral science has proven that dominance and punishment based techniques…are less effective and more dangerous than science-based positive techniques”. So what does it mean to say something is science-based? How does science prove something to be true or not? The implication in the last example above is that punishment isn’t science based. Is that true? Clearly the implication is that if something has the “science” word associated with it, it is somehow better. If that’s true – something we’ll discuss – then how must the results of scientific research be applied to our work to make it legitimately “science based”? The more we read about “being scientific” the more we think the claim can create misunderstanding and confusion when we really stop and think about carefully about what is being said. In this webinar we’ll address the use of the word “science” in animal related activities and how the word is often misused to make procedures, information, or techniques seem better than they really are. We’ll illustrate the issues with examples of claims and studies from animal behavior, training and behavior consulting.

Sponsor:Animal Behavior Associates
Speaker(s):Daniel Estep, Ph.D., CAAB and Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D., CAAB

Contact: Tracey
 Email: info@animalbehaviorassociates.com
 Phone: 303-932-9095
 Web: http://www.behavioreducationnetwork.com/