Is there anything we didn't already know  

http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/cef4928d-2917-462d-ab12-b56b2be320ef

This kind of hits a nerve with me because I see there is an agenda behind it. It's not about science, it's about animal rights. At about 1:10, you hear it when they start talking about rethinking viewing dogs as property. I'm all for animal welfare, but to me this is propaganda. What if we trained other animals to be still in an mri? I'm guessing we would also see brain activity associated with social behavior and emotion. I want to know who paid for this study. Dogs are not people. Dogs are dogs, humanizing them does not benefit them in any way, and quite frankly, I think humanizing them does far more harm than good.

Wow.  So just buy the new book, really.

That a researcher who is ostensibly a scientist would conclude that "dogs are people too" is just beyond irresponsible and well, just logically ridiculous.  

If he has said, "like humans dogs also have....."  or "dogs seem to have........similar to how humans have........" then that would be acceptable.  

But what he has said is kind of like saying lemons have citric acid so lemons are oranges too.  

So....there must be some propaganda or ethically questionable market targeting for this book.  Shame on Emory University to allow this message to be distributed in this way.  

My dismissal of this "research" is both as someone who does not condone humanizing dogs or thinking of dogs as people and as someone who has studied logic.  

Thank you for posting the video.

I hope I'm (nor Jen) not coming off as cold hearted or insensitive. I'm for the basic message of *dogs deserve respect and fair treatment* and I am myself overtaken by how integrated and amazingly relevant a dog can become in my life. I love my dog more than most things or people on Earth. But I just can't let that love or that compassion lead me astray to these embarrassingly irrational clams about a dog's personhood or human components.

It's just a hot button for me.

I think it's more like saying Lemons are yellow and so are taxi cabs, so lemons are taxi cabs too.

Actually, I was thinking more of how dogs brains light up when their owner is around, less about the whole ethical/philosophical implications of "people-izing" animals.

I just want to know how they trained dogs to go into MRI's - I've had more than my share in the last 2 years and even drugged, I won't do it without hubby sitting by and holding my foot!

amymeme wrote:

Actually, I was thinking more of how dogs brains light up when their owner is around, less about the whole ethical/philosophical implications of "people-izing" animals.

Yes, however, the conclusion/title of the video is that "dogs are people too."

This has nothing to do with the MRI study and is precisely the problem of "people-izing" animals.

There is an agenda with marketing it that way and framing this as the conclusion of the study.

wpskier222 wrote:

I think it's more like saying Lemons are yellow and so are taxi cabs, so lemons are taxi cabs too.

Haha, touche.

Our formulations are actually the identical fallacy, yours is just more thoroughly and properly worded.

I failed.

No, not at all. Mine wouldn't have existed without yours as a jumping off point.

Peas and carrots. We need to get a room....as it were.

Ha ha ha! Being a scientist myself this cracks me up. Videos, and media articles, like this are exactly why the general public, lacking any sort of science background, has absolutely no clue what is going on with this planet. The next person who tells me that climate change is a hoax because this winter is cold is getting slapped, I swear!!!! There is a difference between weather and climate people! Ugh.

...Sometimes the best way to approach claims such as this is as entertainment and propoganda. I would take it almost as seriously as I would a politician's claims during an election year. As much as people hate it when science uses words like "probably" and "likely" and "strong correlation" instead of definitives scientists will always write that way. Mostly because we are open minded to the advance of technology that can update our view of the world around us and refine our understanding.

CavingSiberian wrote:

There is a difference between weather and climate people! Ugh.

That's a fantastic quote!

Applied above: There is a difference between attributes and species people! Ugh.

What kind of a scientist are you, by the way?

Geologist.

Ha ha, I have to explain it to my friends and family all the time. It's like people think that because we have a cold, wet winter it is getting colder. Climate is measured in centuries, not in years. Ha ha ha.. I have so many pet peeves about that. I tried to explain to my cousins how the carbon isotopes in the CO2 in the atmosphere currently tells us the CO2 is coming from fossil fuels and not volcanoes or recently-living plant matter but I think my explanation went on deaf ears because they don't understand how elements can have different numbers of neutrons over time..... *sigh*.

seattlesibe wrote:

Peas and carrots.   We need to get a room....as it were.

Tell me about it! ... Kidding!   

Concluding they are "people" just because they have a spike of brain activity when their owner walks in….give me a break. I guess I don't understand how any of this can be passed off as "scientific evidence?"

Exactly. but I bet if you buy the book he'll tell you.

I just like Jeff's quote that "He's studied logic" to a moron like me it sounds like he went to the University of Spock