Thank you - and that's a genuine thank you: You were me right
there. I like going to sources; although typically historically
sources, like etymology for example and such.
You said:
"I don't expect people to take apart every study sentence by
sentence, but there are limits and, in my opinion, Kenneth broke
straight through them."
Yes you are correct. I broke straight through the limits. I went
straight to rant. I did not read the study. I could have, and
normally I would have.
Yet, I've read thousands of scientific studies through the
years, exploding in volume from the abstracts in the library I'd
read as a teenager in the library in the 1980s, abstracts in the
1990s+ on the early net (Gopher sites), then the Web, and then
FINALLY when full length articles were becoming available in the
early 2000s, as Open Access FINALLY became a reality.
But none of that matters.
I was wrong for not reading the article and you were right for
calling me out on it.
But, I didn't have any doubt that WITHIN the 20-cat sample size,
there was good Science done. I was flippant about the cat
behavior remark, yet noticing their departments focus on solely
cats and dogs, and their programmes preferences for dogs over
cats, and the offerings of puppy training (but not kitten
training), I don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize
they're comparing cats and dogs here, not general human/animal
communication.
Within "pet" behavioral science, they (meaning the field) have
transferred a questionable construct - attachment theory, which
is utilized for humans, not without great controversy, and
previously was used in the "pet" animal behavioral sciences
solely for dogs... and applied it to cats.
A quick search in Google Scholar and there are many studies done
regarding "Secure Base Effect" with dogs. How many with cats?
I suppose this will be the first or second one.
I also don't buy into Attachment Theory as it stands _anyhow_;
there is a multiplicity of relationships beyond a mythological
"dyad" of parent/child, pet owner/pet; and in the most idiotic
of cases: One Adolescent and One Parent, but I don't want to get
into the sorry state of Adolescent Psychology trends as they
stand.
But forget all of that.
All that being said, allow me to get pragmatic here:
a) Study done with 20 cats.
b) Report goes out to Media. [they didn't "find it"]
Ok, let me stop there. It was published in PLOS One: the Pay to
Publish Site.
"Operating under a pay-to-publish model, PLOS ONE publishes
approximately 70% of submitted manuscripts. All submissions go
through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of
academic editors" "According to the journal, papers are not to
be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or
adherence to a scientific field. "
In short, they issued what amounts to a paid press release.
So my critique is less about the study itself, but more about
the modern process of publish-or-perish and OUR automatic
WILLINGNESS to accept something because we hear magic words
like, "Peer Reviewed". "Journal".
I'm a fan of Science and always have been. But that is why I am
VERY critical when something like this slides through the
process and becomes news, which then influences non-scientist
opinions about their world.
Mind you, I'm _grateful_ for PLOS One and open access journals.
VERY grateful, as they gave me the ability to read full studies.
But that ALSO forced me to be extra vigilant, because a lot of
horseshit slides through it as well.
There are over 500 million of domestic cats in the world.
They studied 20. Should I REALLY bother to read an article that
bases conclusions about the World of All Domestic Cats upon an
insignificant sample size?
20 / 500,000,000.
My 3.5 year old niece's child can see which number is bigger,
and by lots and lots and lots.
