Hehe, ah, how little you know me, young Rosie Even if Mr Maddog doesn't read the articles, they may provide interesting reading to someone else who still believes in the dominance model - someone who may be a little more receptive to the idea that understanding moves on, leading to new ideas and methods
That's a good question, and science doesn't always progress in a linear way. But imagine sticking with yesteryear's computers, medical science or aeroplanes! ...
@Boogie, true, but it does make me wonder that people who study dogs come up with some research results, then the next ones come up with it entirely different!
In my opinion what makes it better is the collective conscience of the scientific community. The rigour of peer review and criticism before new science is published as "the best we know for now". That doesn't mean it won't change again or that new factors or influences may be discovered. It does mean that everyone's done their utmost to establish the most accurate version of the truth that they can.
And, to add to the points Barbara made, the fact that the research that was done by Schenkel was carried out on animals under completely different criteria to those he extrapolated to. Not only were they wolves - who behave differently to dogs, as demonstrated by the experiment that showed how domestic dogs look to humans for help, whereas wolves do not, but also on unrelated wolves in a forced "pack", whereas wolves in the wild live in familiar groups. You might as well research clown fish and say that's how dogs behave.
