Do you have any publications, documented studies or research to prove your argument that “no”is good for the welfare of the dog? Because if you disagree with Jo who proposes it is bad then you must, by default, in disagreeing with her believe that “no” is good for the dog. You can’t discredit her and the many others by repeatedly citing insufficient evidence as your only case if you have none yourself to prove it is good. And if you don’t believe it is good for the dog then you are a troll looking to battle wits for pleasure in your spare time. Paradigms hapen all the time and happen at all levels in life from animal training models to medicine and even extend out to theories like plate tectonics, evolution and universal research. Beliefs that were once accepted truths with tons of supportive published evidence are discredited all the time. So if your argument is solely based on the fact that you can’t belive No isn’t bad for the animal because of a lack of evidence then that too is moot because that would disallow you to argue only on opinions. A clever wordsmith can win a debate but that doesn’t mean they are correct.
I really wish people would stop with the logical fallacies (i.e. name calling). This is how the world works: A person makes a claim (publishes a paper, writes a book, or writes an article). The onus is then on the person making the claims to prove their points. It is NEVER the job of the reader to prove the statements are false. A good article, is one where the claims made are properly supported. Pippa wrote an article (https://totallydogtraining.com/dog-training-using-the-word-no/) which has no citations, so one can't tell what her sources are. Additionally, current reviews (see "The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs - A review", Journal of Veterinary Behavior 19 (2017) 50e60) that go through all the known literature in this field, and do not show a relationship between saying 'no' (ie 'bridges', 'conditional punishers', etcetera) and a negative effect on the welfare of the dog. I have gone through most of the papers cited in this review. The review is fairly recent, although there could be more research published since which I would not know about. And as I said, I don't know what work Pippa based her article on, there could be something I don't know about, hence why I asked. Yes, ideas that aren't proven are called 'hypothesis'. That is how science works. Until there is evidence, a hypothesis is merely an unproven concept. When evidence arises supporting a hypothesis, then the hypothesis becomes 'fact' or if the evidence is weak, something less than a fact. I have no conflict of interest on this topic. I don't get a nickel for every time someone says 'no' to their dog. If a quality published paper shows that saying 'no' to a dog is bad for dogs, then I would simply accept it. I will follow whatever the data shows. This is why I asked if someone had a citation for the claims Pippa made. The view you are putting forward is...I'm not really sure what to call it, its sorta a 'science-denier' perspective. I would argue that the manner in which some scientific results get 'discredited' is actually proof that the system works. A framework exists for discrediting bad science, and that framework is published peer-reviewed publications. The system also requires that people read the primary literature, draw their own conclusions about how well supported the claims are with actual data, and question the veracity of unsupported claims. And within that framework, I pointed to Pippa's article noted that no literature, which I am aware of, support many of the statements made. I'd also point out that science has led to the discovery of numerous medical advances, and other advances in transportation, and indeed resulted in computers and the internet that we are using...so I would disagree with you, science clearly works as a whole.
