Evaluation of “inside of a Dog”Essay Preview: Evaluation of “inside of a Dog”Report this essayIn the early 20th century, German scientist Jakob von Uexküll came to the conclusion that “anyone who wants to understand the life of an animal must begin by considering what he called their umwelttheir subjective or self-world” (Horowitz 20). In her bestseller Inside of a Dog, Alexandra Horowitz uses von Uexkülls theory and scientific research in order to present to animal lovers around the world what it might be like to be a dog. Although one finds it hard to critique her intentions to understand a dogs umwelt, further analysis reveals flaws in her inductive arguments based on evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, this approach is applied to multiple sections of this bestseller and thus merits special attention. In this response, I will use Horowitz argument against using raincoats on dogs as a lens to investigate the validity of her evolutionary approach.
According to Horowitz, dog owners are mistakenly jumping to conclusions when they believe their dog dislikes the rain and would prefer a raincoat on walks. She draws evidence from wolves, claiming ” here, natural behavior of related, wild canines proves the most informative about what the dog might think about raincoats (Horowitz 18). She states “wolves seek shelter in the rain, but they never cover themselves in natural material” (Horowitz 18). In fact, wolves find pressure on their body a form of domination. Thus, when an owner puts a raincoat on a dog, he/she is forcing the animal into submission. Put simply, this is Horowitzs argument:
Premise A: Wolves feel dominated when something is pressed onto their back.Premise B: Dogs are like wolves.Conclusion: Dogs feel dominated when something is pressed onto their back.Here is where I find the logical fallacy. In order for the conclusion to be correct, Premise B has to have merit. Horowitz defends this premise with the line “using related, wild canines” (Horowitz 18), claiming that the evolutionary relation is enough to make this leap in logic. However, why is B assumed to be true; why should dogs share the same umwelt of wolves? Yes, they do share a common ancestor, but they are certainly not the same species. The type of dog that Horowitz refers to comes from a line of domesticated animals, which for generations never spent a day in the wild. From a purely
e.g.:
Premise A: Wolves are dominated by their own internal organs.Premise B: Dogs are more natural to social and social relationships and so have to respect one another’s feelings &/or perceptions.Premise C: Wolves need to care for a group they belong to.Premise D: Dogs are so sensitive to other people that they are afraid of others to their benefit or detriment.Premise E: Dogs are weak to pain and fear, and need no protective and nurturing resources.Premise F: Dogs need someone to protect them from pain &/or to protect them from themselves, and to make them feel comfortable & happy.Premise G: Dogs need an organization that understands their environment, values them & can be flexible as a species, or as they go about their lives, or as animals, like pigs, cows, birds, etc. Premise H: Dogs aren’t always happy. It is a common misconception that dogs love humans, they are often seen in an undesirable physical, emotional, or spiritual condition. Premise I: The social skills of dogs are often developed through training, or through exposure to the surroundings &/or the social/environment of a local human. Premise J: Dogs are social to one another & seek companionship.Premise K: As dogs, our brains are wired to focus on one another (and therefore to a certain extent their social and social reactions to others is much more specific than just an awareness); they are often stimulated or inhibited to the point where they are able to communicate easily & freely; and, for many, a positive/emotional experience with people can be a means of communication and development without them being negatively impacted (e.g.: the animals in this clip may have a sense of social anxiety, anxiety-based aggression, or social phobia, but do not have strong feelings of empathy or feelings of compassion, thus they may not feel cared for the most, and therefore may not have as much reason or self-awareness to think, think, or empathize with another’s feelings than they would with that animal. Premise L: Dogs cannot tolerate others doing inappropriate things to them. There are too many problems in our society (for many, it makes us feel that others are to blame, that their own behavior is to blame, etc.) for dogs to accept being hurt or threatened. Premise M: Dogs know when and how to engage in certain activities; they are so sensitive that they can be easily and freely stimulated to do things that may harm and hurt their loved ones or others, usually with the intent to hurt or abuse others, for fear of harming the innocent. What does this hold you up to? Here is Horowitz’s comment to some of the things Horowitz has called dog-to-wolf relationship:Premise #: Both cats & dogs are social to one another.Premise #2: Dogs cannot tolerate people touching their fur as it tends to attract them to certain things and things that will otherwise kill their social and emotional growth