Re:Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
by TameAntelope on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @02:44PM
(#31251924)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
They didn't put out a paper saying the sky is red, they put out a paper saying the magnitude of impact from breed on dog behavior is substantially less pronounced than previously thought.
It is not rational for you to double down on this belief.
Re:Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
by dTal on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @02:50PM
(#31252001)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
The headline does not say "substantially less pronounced than previously thought". The headline says "breed does not predict behaviour (nature.com)". Any fool who works with dogs will tell you that yes, it ruddy well does.
Re:Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
by TameAntelope on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @03:22PM
(#31252367)
Not a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, because I said the paper, not the linked article about the paper.
And no, the "headline" (called a "Title") of the paper published in Nature says, "Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes".
If Nature put out a paper saying the sky is red, it would be entirely rational of me to question what on Earth is going on at Nature, rather than my years of experience of blue skies.