3 minutes a day in a centrifuge was part of the failed biosensor "super dog" program.
Dog culture is lazy and unoriginal, and profoundly stagnant. The desire for easy answers, simplistic how-tos and formulas for success is rampant. Just do this one simple thing!
Breeders eschew complexity, uncertainty, and experimentation. They fear change and embrace unproven tradition on face value. We do it this way because we’ve always done it this way.
Reason gives way to mimicry, and that is the true mark of conformation: not in the dogs keeping to a written standard but in breeders kowtowing to the unwritten rites and rituals to fit in.
One cherished ritual that can be found proudly advertised on numerous breeder websites (usually after the “Our Boys” and “Our Girls” links) as a sign of their reputable status and deep commitment to superior dogs is the adoption of the “Bio-Sensor” program as the one true path™ to dog raising.
I
n only 15-25 seconds a day for only 14 days in a dog’s life you will realize “life long lasting effects:” “improve performance,” “respond maximally,” “attain sexual maturity sooner,” “resist cancer and infectious disease,” “withstand terminal starvation,” achieve “psychological superiority,” “stronger heart beats,” “stronger adrenal glands,” and “improved cardio vascular performance!”
That’s less than 6 total minutes of work to make a super dog! AMAZING!
The brains over at the sci-ence blog have come up with a handy chart to recognize quackery, the relevant parts of which I’ve reproduced here. Their instructions:
“If you come upon a treatment or product that seems too good to be true, consult this handy guide to finding pseudoscience, scams, and quack medicine. Remember, it only takes one match to be considered suspect! Be safe, and be skeptical!”
This widely tauted “Bio Sensor” a.k.a “Super Dog” a.k.a “Early Neurological Stimulation” program has many warning signs of quack science.
Let’s start with who is peddling this pseudoscience: Dr. Carmen a.k.a Carmelo Battaglia, Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club.
Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia, of Roswell, Georgia, owns and breeds German Shepherd Dogs and is Delegate and Past President of the German Shepherd Dog Club of America. Carmen has chaired the Committee for the Future and Business/Planning Committee and as a former AKC Director, served as Board liaison for the Health, Parent Club, HEC and By-Laws Delegates committees. He has published articles on breeding and legislation as well as several award-winning books. He also serves as an AKC expert witness in dog legislation cases and has written county dog legislation which resulted in the model that is used in several states. Carmen possesses a Doctorate from Florida State University and has been Assistant Dean at Emory University and Regional Administrator at the US Department of Education. He is also the President of Atlanta Student Aid (financial aid consulting Firm) as well as the past president/owner of three post secondary schools which were located in two states.
You’ll remember Dr. Battaglia from his resurrection of Lloyd Brackett and his infamous “Brackett’s Formula.” Dr. Battaglia gives lectures on cruise ships to up-and-coming brown-nosers in the AKC hierarchy who want to buy the secret knowledge and pay the right gate keepers to fast track show success. He’s the closest thing the AKC community has to a celebrity doctor.
But don’t get too comfortable with the idea that he’s a medical doctor, he isn’t. He’s a Ph.D. doctor, which he readily advertises at the end of his publications:
Carmen L Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State University. As an AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in promotion of breeding better dogs and has written many articles and several books.
Dr. Battaglia is also a popular TV and radio talk show speaker. His seminars on breeding dogs, selecting sires and choosing puppies have been well received by the breed clubs all over the country. Those interested in learning more about his seminars should contact him directly.
Visit his website at http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com
What he doesn’t advertise anywhere that I’ve found despite an extensive search is what subjects his degrees are in. So I contacted the Curriculum Publications Coordinator at Florida State University and found out the unpublished truth: B.A. Psychology 1958, M.S. Social Welfare 1960, PhD Joint Doctoral Program in Criminology Corrections and Sociology 1968.
So by way of education, Dr. Battaglia is more equipped to run a prison than a breeding program. His dissertation was titled “Deviant behavior of parolees and the decision-making process of parole supervisors.”
The next indicator that “Bio-Sensor” is quack science is because it’s being SOLD as a how-to guide to success without having been vetted in any way by scientists in peer reviewed publications resulting from studies done according to the scientific method.
Dr. Battaglia sells his program along with breeding and puppy selection advice as part of his self-help for dog breeding commercial venture. You can buy books, videos, DVDs, and subscribe to his newsletter and attend his lectures.
In accordance with yet another quackery red flag, Dr. Battaglia is pitching program that offers medical benefits but he (nor anyone else) has no peer-reviewed journal articles on his protocol. And it’s not for lack of trying. If you visit his website you will find a link to request his so far unpublished journal article. When you do so, you will be e-mailed a copy of an extended version of his Bio-Sensor article spruced up to look like an actual experiment with “Methods and Materials” and everything.
It appears from the file that Dr. Battaglia has attempted to get this article published since at least 2007, but he will warn you that the article is still under intense review and thus you can not share it.
This wouldn’t be the first time that the “Bio Sensor” program has been used to sell a self-help program, however, as Dr. Battaglia collaborated with Stanley Coren–king of marketing shoddy dog science to pet owners in book form–who included the information in his book Why Does My Dog Act That Way?
Battaglia and Coren’s considerable influence on the dog fancy combined with Battaglia offering the super simplified how-to instructions for achiving super dog success for free on his website as a teaser for his suite of videos, books, and lectures the “Early Neurological Stimulation” program has saturated the hobby pet breeder culture. Breeder testimonials and reprints of the method are everywhere.
Diligently following Dr. Battaglia’s advice, there are breeders out there inbreeding their lines and producing singleton puppies who none-the-less credit Brackett’s Formula and the amazing Bio-Sensor program for giving them a super puppy abounding with exceptional qualities.
Apparently I’m part of a silent minority who have even questioned this program’s merits and the academic bona fides of the man who peddles it from coast to coast, as I’ve found no online criticism of the methods and not even one other soul who questioned what Dr. Battaglia’s field of study was until I sent out feelers over a year ago.
But it’s clear to me that Bio-Sensor is being marketed just like quack science is marketed, by people who have a vested financial interest in selling easy answers and quick fixes to gullible pet breeders who spend fortunes trying to rectify their ignorance with short cuts and feel-good nonsense.
In a quadrumvirate of quackery, Battaglia also uses his “Breeding Better Dogs” website to sell Japanese (think Eastern medicine) magic magnetic shoe inserts and magic magnetic dog beds that are “combined with magnetic technology, another ancient principle” and “enhance the body’s energy flow to allow healing and proper metabolism.” This is a man perfectly willing to market quack science as a miracle product for profit.
So far I’ve shown that Bio-Sensor looks like a duck, and in a future post I’ll show you how it quacks like a duck as well.
All posts in this series:
Bio-Sensor is Bad Science: QuackeryBio-Sensor is Bad Science: True Biosensor
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Hey, at least Carmen didn’t go to Patriot Bible University and begin his dissertation “Hello. My name is Carmen Battaglia…”
Retrieverman recently posted..Amphicyon ingens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHxRkXrBMKo&feature=related
Embeddign is disabled by request, but go to it.
It’s the most educaitonal episode of Seinfeld ever made…
Retrieverman recently posted..Amphicyon ingens
Wow. The 60 minutes of dogdom! I appreciate this article.
Dr. Mercola has a vet who pushes similar stuff- Karen Becker. I think she might have a vet degree. Isn’t that even worse???
Kate Williams recently posted..Why the hairless dog is not the underlying breed, but grafted onto it.
Ask yourself this simple question…. does a Vet school offer a class on the subject matter this Vet is making an “expert” opinion on? If the answer is no, then their degree is just there to make you think they are more credible. Sort of like all the lawyers who become TV pundits.
If the “celebrity” spokesman can’t make a convincing argument without relying on “trust me” then you have to do your own due diligence, and the product being sold is probably not nearly as magical as the ads make it seem.
I know we’ve had our discussions 😉 about this particular subject and I think it’s a culturally acceptable way to subject puppies to stuff that makes them squawk a lot. It’s also a marketing tool.
There are studies in my info link on rats and puppies if you want them. The Jindo study is quite interesting.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
I don’t think the question of socializing, exposing, handling and stressing puppies is really controversial or wrong. What’s wrong is that this is a totally arbitrary protocol that is wrapped in scientific trappings and over-sold as a miracle process.
It’s bogus. It’s probably not harmful, but admit it, there’s no reason to follow this specific protocol or believe in the hyped up claims.
This is group think religion, it’s quack science, and its popularity far outweighs its merits.
There is so much deception here, if you follow this protocol, you’re really a fool. There is really no other way to say it.
You might as well burn an offering to the Gods or pray for a super dog if you really think 3.5-6 minutes (and not a second more or less!!!!) of mundane stimulus TOTAL in the entire dog’s life, is going to lead to a “super dog” with all the benefits claimed by Battaglia.
Not a single study one can point to speaks to ANY aspect of this protocol. The best one can come up with is that denying a young pup (of any social species) of ANY stimulus and interaction is detrimental. DUH.
There is not a shred of evidence that doing this hocus pocus will produce any results at all.
I’d like to see the rat and puppy studies.
I’ll also admit it, I did the Bio-Sensor thing with my puppies. I read a lot of books about critical periods, socialization, etc, and had first come across Carmen Battaglia in a book by Pat Hastings. The pups were raw fed, Rule of Sevens, and introduced to a clicker as soon as they could hear.
The Bio-sensor theory seems to be the dog fancy’s answer to Baby Einstein. It might work, it might not, but it sorta sounds like it might be legit. And nobody wants to be left behind.
Did you REALLY follow the protocol as if it was scientific? As in, did you only touch your puppies for 3-5 seconds ONLY!!! and only ONCE! per day! And did you really expect touching their feet pads with a Q-tip to turn them into some sort of biologically transformed bomb proof dog?
Did you worry that if you were doing it wrong, not timing it perfectly, or had the temperatures JUST SO that you’d be harming your puppies?
There’s a difference between training fads and nice little excuses to socialize and SCIENCE!!!! (must be said emphatically). I think most people know that “Rule of 7s” is just a cute little training fad and that if you miss a day, only get in 6, or go overboard and have your puppy do 12 surfaces, you’re not likely to get different results.
As for RAW, well, I don’t normally talk about training regimes or feeding, because in my little black heart I don’t really care what people feed their dogs nor how they train them, because those things really don’t translate into lasting and permanent changes in breeds. You’re welcome to “super-dog-ify” or botch your own dog via food and training, but it doesn’t really impact others that much.
The exception which Scottie has pointed out to me is that popular training methods do define some breeds like working retrievers where the training methods are of paramount importance and also paired with temperament decisions in the types of dogs that are bred. I.e. if 95% of the top breeding stock is being evaluated and trained using force fetch, you’re going to change the temperament of the breed based upon which sorts of dogs do well under that method.
ANY WAY, I hope my post allows you to be more skeptical of what sorts of benefits you can really expect and what sorts of dubious sales pitches are being used to make you a true believer (and future customer) of these hacks.
lol, would it even be possible to touch adorable little puppies for only a few seconds once per day? Nah, they grew up sleeping on the couch with me and Mom Dog while we watched tv, and toted around wrapped in baby blankets by the neighbor’s two little girls.
The raw thing started because I had a sickly dog who only did well on raw, and it was eaiser to feed all the dogs the same food. These days, I feed mainly Bil-Jac (which contains evil corn) and use more balanced training methods (which include evil corrections). Somehow, the dogs survive.
This is part of my criticism of the PROTOCOL! I mean really, this thing is not scientific at all, it’s Battaglia pulling some crap out of his butt and selling it as gospel.
Even if it’s efficacious and not harmful, it’s derived from opinion and experience, and that’s ART, not science.
I’m with you on the regimes. Try lots of things, keep what works, there is not “one true path” and nothing that is worth having or doing is simple and temporary.
You can’t just do one little thing and get a great result. By their definition, exceptional results require exceptional effort and circumstances.
“As for RAW, well, I don’t normally talk about training regimes or feeding, because in my little black heart I don’t really care what people feed their dogs nor how they train them, because those things really don’t translate into lasting and permanent changes in breeds. ”
Actually, they do. Talk to Scottie about how e-collar training affects temperament.
The food thing is a given. Much of how we handle particular diets is hereditary; you know about my problems, well, my sister is celiac and my mother also has IBS. Same thing with dogs. Continuing to breed dogs that require ‘special’ food does produce a permanent change, we see it in breeds which are notorious for digestive issues, like GSDs, where they’ve actually made associations with genes and IBD.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
Re: diet, I couldn’t agree more. I read a column in the AKC Gazette about 10 years ago saying basically the same thing. This was right about the time that raw was becoming really popular and grain-free kibble was the new “it” food.
The column was written by a toy breeder (English Toy Spaniel iirc) and was about how she fed a basic food with no supplements. Even though it would be fairly easy to feed tiny dogs an expensive food, it was not fair to breed without knowing whether or not her dogs were “easy keepers”. I’ve since met many breeders who feel the same way.
The collie’s ancestors did just fine on whatever their owners ate (haggis and porridge, yum).
Wow, just, wow. I’ve been saying this to deaf ears for years.
I do it with my puppies, Jana. It is difficult to find things to do to them that actually stress them, they are completely complacent about all ‘normal’ handling. I will say that the litter I did not do it on, because they became ill at two weeks old with a bacterial infection, are somewhat more squirelly than my other pups.
It’s also a marketing tool; they are a LOT of people out there who really associate it with being ‘responsible.’
I think Christopher is being a little harsh and unnecessarily insulting by calling people who do the protocol ‘fools.’ We have had this discussion before; his puppies are VERY different than mine in terms of stressors.
Whether people who do the whole thing are true believers or not is a different thing.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
This issue isn’t really controlled stressing puppies for their own benefit. The issue is if the Battaglia protocol has any merit and is exact, precise, and tested as he implies…. let alone capable of producing the results that are promised.
This is akin to adopting an organized ONE TRUE religion as guide to being a moral person… and being a moral person.
If you outsource reason to a false prophet, then you are, in fact, a fool.
I don’t take it that either of you are actually adherents to the Church of Battaglia. If we want to actually talk about the efficacy of stressing newborns, I’m pretty sure we can do so in a manner that is scientific and rational and not voodoo. You’ll notice I have not come out against the idea of stressors at all, I’ve come out against Battagliaism and the associated religious fundamentalism associated with it.
Then you need to be exceptionally explicit about who are slinging your insults at.
I don’t appreciate being called a fool or lumped in with fools, simply because I find these exercises a useful way to torture my puppies.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
I am exceptionally explicit. Frankly, you’re being careless about language and it’s not my fault that you have some emotional connection to this pseudo science junk. I’m CLEARLY from the very title of this post onward criticizing this as SCIENCE. Not art. Not useful exercise. Not probably harmless diversion. SCIENCE.
If you think this is good, documented, science, then go ahead and document how this protocol fits peer reviewed protocol with data, results, and peer review.
I don’t think you’d tolerate some Born Again Christian claiming that they find the Bible to be useful, and thus it is science and proven. You’re ignoring everything I’ve actually said in this post regarding how this has been sold and instead telling me that since you are a practitioner you’re offended at me calling the faithful (not the reasoned) stupid.
Do you have FAITH in this protocol, or do you have reason?
Since this protocol does not have the obvious potential disaster scenario that can be directly traced to it like, say, not vaccinating has, I don’t imagine that you’ll have the same conversion on this issue like you had on the vaccine issue. But if you don’t want to admit that this is bad science, then please read the references cited by Battaglia and demonstrate to me how they in any manner provide evidence in support of the specificity and manner of this protocol.
I will demonstrate in a future post that not only was the science not done in this case but that the entire program was a failure in part because they couldn’t demonstrate any benefits and couldn’t produce the dogs in the comparatively small numbers needed for military work let alone the much larger numbers that would be required to actually TEST the efficacy of their protocol and demonstrate efficacy. I’ll also document that there is no evidence that the Battaglia protocol is even substantially related to the military protocol.
Just because you like it doesn’t make it SCIENCE. And I seriously doubt that you’ll agree that your use of the Battaglia protocol has issued your dogs the great list of amazing benefits he claims. If you think 3.5 minutes of touching your puppies has the power to overturn genetics by a factor of TWO (as Battaglia claims), well, that’s faith, not reason. And it’s certainly not science. In fact, I’d still call it stupid.
Thanks for being an asshole and totally reading into what I said, Christopher.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
Chris think I utilize a little of all in what is called good old fashion common horse sense. Hey, but always ready to believe in Santa again.
I wish to locate the scientific evidence or study of a breeding theory which is gaining many Believers and why not the sell job is a $1,200 to $1,500 dollar price tag on normal eyed non carrier puppies. Hey, those normal eyed non carriers are bringing some big dollars for breeding and show quality.
My personal studies have not located any scientific documentation to these claims. I am here to learn. It is stated a breeding program exists with success that one can breed a coloboma blind collie white merle to a DNA proven non carrier for CEA and magic wand produces all true unaffected normal eyed collies? I bred a carrier to a normal eye non carrier and got only 50% non carriers for CEA with no bred for colobomas for ten generations. Now what did I do wrong? Did I forget to throw in hip dyplasia, missing teeth, seizures or autoimmune problems?
There are individuals who believe it does not past on to any offspring when using marker normals to affected even with conditions such as seizures or skin problems. Can anyone produce the scientific evidence of such claims? I am here to learn. Wow this would be like bringing back Santa, Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy. Kathy Bittorf
Chris think I utilize a little of all in what is called good old fashion common horse sense. Hey, but always ready to believe in Santa again.
I wish to locate the scientific evidence or study of a breeding theory which is gaining many Believers. Why not the sell job promises of $1,200 to $1,500 dollar price tag on normal eyed non carrier puppies.
Hey, those normal eyed non carriers are bringing some big dollars for breeding and show quality.
My personal studies have not located any scientific documentation to support these practiced claims. I am here to learn, so bring it on. It is stated a breeding program exists with success that one can breed a coloboma blind collie white merle to a DNA proven non carrier for CEA and magic wand produces all true unaffected normal eyed collies?
I bred a carrier unaffected to a normal eye non carrier and got only 50% non carriers for CEA with no breedings for colobomas in for sure ten generations. Now what did I do wrong? Did I forget to throw in hip dyplasia, missing teeth, seizures or autoimmune problems?
There are individuals who believe it does not past on to any offspring when using marker normals to affected even with conditions such as seizures or skin problems. Example: A colored white who is basically coloboma blind with seizures and skin problems to a sable merle and white that has been tested with all present genetic markers with no seizures and skin problems normal eyed non carrier stated puppies will all be normal eyed with none of the dam health issues expressed in offspring? I have found no documentation to any scientific studies to even suggest this is possible.
Can anyone produce the scientific evidence of such claims? I am here to learn. Wow this would be like bringing back Santa, Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy.
Kathy Bittorf
Sorry for the double entry. I did forget for anyone that could produce documentation that my breeding neither were white merles, both Sire and Dam were MDR1 normal/normal, both DNA free of cyclic neutropenia, no presence of merle ocular degenesis.
Now what I do wrong only to get 50% non-carriers for CEA did I need a double dilute/white merle with colobomas? Kathy Bittorf
https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B-tmRo0q4q50NmY4OTRhYmMtMzAwNS00NjZmLTg1ZDUtZmQ3YzM0OGRiNTUz
For some reason I have not uploaded the Jindo studies, I will do it later.
You can do a search for ‘rats’ or ‘mice,’ box at the top.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
Jindo puppies (pdf):
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/72/4/405/_pdf
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
Becker is a quack. I’ve a list she did of what ‘makes a good breeder’ and it’s hilarious. I’ve also taken down her ‘rotating foods prevents allergies’ garbage although I don’t mention her by name.
Jess recently posted..Tomorrow is Another Day
If you enjoy anti-quackery and pro-science websites, do read Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science blog.
In particular this Biosensor thing – I eagerly await the next installment to find out if I am right – reminds me of Braingym, a bizarre series of excercises that allegedly help children achieve at school.
http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/banging-your-head-repeatedly-against-the-brick-wall-of-teachers-stupidity-helps-to-co-ordinate-your-left-and-right-cerebral-hemispheres/
Now I think that Dr. Battaglia looks like Dr. Oz.
Raegan recently posted..On "Pellucid Prose"
Well, it’s that or Tim Minchin. 🙂
Christopher, Where have people like you been all the years of dogdom´s life?
One more article like that and I´ll link from our Swedish Collie blog…
Thanks Bodil. One more article on Bio-Sensor is in the works, but while you wait, I invite you to check out some other posts that might interest you. I have a keyword cloud on the right side of the blog and some categories like “Health and Genetics” at the top that should give you plenty of material to read and digest. Feel free to share, comment, criticize, and suggest topics.
After some careful consideration, mostly because I wish to offend no one, BioSensor is misrepresenting the actual science behind this.
While reading about the “Super Puppy” program found in several books, it is easy to understand where they are coming from, but there is an air of congruent woo behind it.
The science is based on neglected children; however it is important to note that these programs omit quite a bit of things from those studies.
May I point to a lecture from TEDtalk? It is from a favourite of everyone: Ben Goldacre.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html
It is subtitled in a multitude of languages for the non-native speakers here.
Let me copy and paste the relevant section here:
Now it is important to note most breeders do not follow the BioSensor program. They adhere to the ideology of the BioSensor, but not what it outlines.
I would contend that people should not hitch themselves to the wagon of BioSensor; and just say they socialize with their puppies or they play with their puppies because that is actually closer to what they are doing oppose to the misrepresented field of science.
There is a problem, as Dave points out, with assertions in articles and newspapers (and even places like “live science” that assert A, B or C based on a science study or reports that actually show no such thing. One can go and “read the paper” but the average person (including breeders or owners) is rarely equipped to follow a scientific study in detail and even less so to detect if that study had a preconceived conclusion before ever the study started. For example, the almost daily conflicts about the health pluses or problems involved with tea (black, green or herbal), vitamins, etc.
Bio Sensor appears to be in philosophy not much different from “baby Mozart” / “Baby Einstein” ideas that suggested plunking an infant in front of a TV with the applicable music, etc would make that child a prodigy. Lots of people followed that too. Breeders aren’t much different from anyone else – it’s symptomatic of the poor science in the US more than that breeders are uniquely stupid or misled. I do fault scientists – more often than not, some false statement or wild claim in the news or even in such sites as “live science” which purport to provide information for the public are NOT challenged or refuted in a clearly public way.
I’d love to have access to good, solid research on behavior, training, etc. And it is out there (I’ve read stuff like William Campbell, PHDs book on dog behavior and Scott & Fuller, etc), but it’s often hard to separate the nonsense from the serious. Is it entirely fair to expect the average breeder (or owner) to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of these two articles, both of which appear to be in valid scientific journals?
Obedience training effects on search dog performance
Michael Ben Alexandera, Ted Frienda, Lore Haug Available online 17 May 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.04.008,
Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research
Volume 4, Issue 5, September–October 2009, Pages 203–210
Periods of Early Development and the Effects of Stimulation and Social Experiences in the Canine Carmen L. Battaglia, PhD, Available online 8 September 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.03.003
Although your evaluation of marketing anything as the be all and end all of making a super dog are worthy, your negative comments on Dr. Battaglia’s degrees were just as much a marketing technique for your article. If you do attempt to breed better dogs then you should know that there are no required degrees or one stop teaching institution for being able to breed better dogs. It does take brains, a good eye, lots of record keeping, knowledge of your breed, it’s issues and the lines, and a good bit of whelping and dog raising knowledge, but there is no vet school or any other school that teaches this or offers any degree in this. A degree in genetics may help, but by itself, it will not allow you to breed better dogs. Heck, that degree doesn’t even help you to evaluate those who can breed better dogs without an extremely negative approach and personal attacks like you use merely to capture an audience. You should take your own advice and start using science more than invective to make a useful point.
Actually, you’re wrong. Dr. Battaglia being vague about the content of his degrees but entirely unabashed in putting that Dr. in front of his name is what is called a logical fallacy appeal to authority.
Pointing this out is not a logical fallacy.
And I have several posts which deal with the actual science of “SuperDog” and why there’s really nothing super about it.
Actually my education is very helpful in evaluating woo bullshit masquerading as science, I just USE my knowledge to make a cogent argument instead of appealing to it. I’m right because the facts support my position, not because I have X, Y, or Z knowledge or schooling or degree.
And my approach is negative because Super Dog and Dr. Battaglia is a fraud selling people on snake oil. A quack is a quack, and I’ll point out how ahead of the curve I was posting Dr. Oz quackery, a fraud who is likewise getting some due criticism right now in the public discourse.
Chris I get the point if others do not. The newest one for me is this Show Stackers or Happy Legs in my opinion. Wow promising instance show ring training in a suitcase for Trainer and Dog. Sorry do not mean to be offensive but when I caught four very respected Dog Handlers watching a sales demonstration they were laughing .
Their criticisms and their remarks could easily be heard. I am guessing essed my opinion has some merit. I just found it difficult to laugh at the Collies being used for the demonstration. I even told two Handlers that I know well, hey this is not really funny.
You see I was taught Collies are to freely stack. All four legs are under ..and originally stacking was penalty in the Collie Ring? A well structure shoulder..good muscles …hock not to long or to short…strong top line. This Collie has always come to a wonderful stance in the ring without stacking the stance.
Collies are not to be strung up but moved out on a loose lead.
However, it seems necessary if one has a straight shoulder, or a weak top line. What are your thoughts? http://www.happylegs.com/
Interesting article. It would be even more interesting if you included that the U.S. Military has also used this process and done studies on it. Not sure why you are picking out Dr. Battaglia as if he was the only one who ever has done this and is the only one that promotes it. Seems the military started it back in the 1970s.
Just curious as to why you seem to have so much anger and disgust for this program, but especially Dr. Battaglia. And yes, he can legitimately use the Dr., as that is normal protocol for someone who has the education that he has. I doubt he is “hiding” what he is schooled in. As mentioned by someone else, there really aren’t very many colleges out there that offer degrees in animal psychology or development. Especially since he is not a 20 or 30 year old. Many people who have decades of experience with dogs are considered knowledgeable and are respected.