Dogs use same parts of brain to process speech as humans

by Justice M on September 6, 2016 - 7:49am

                The article I read is “Dogs use same parts of brain to process speech as humans.” This article is about a research project done on dogs in Budapest. The issue in this text is whether dogs process speech similarly to how humans process speech, or if they don’t. After reading the article I think the conclusion is that they do.

1. Dogs use the left hemisphere of the brain to process words.

2.  Dogs use the right hemisphere of the brain to process intonations.

3. Humans use the left hemisphere of the brain to process words

4. Humans use the right hemisphere of the brain to process intonations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Therefore dogs process speech similarly to how humans process speech.

                I am convinced by the author’s conclusion, because I’m not an expert when it comes to the brain, so I can’t really say whether this article is wrong or correct, but there’s a decent amount of information in this text and the text shows that there was research done, so it is pretty convincing to me.

                

Comments

I liked your topic of choice being that I am a dog person myself.
I had no idea that dogs actually understood us that well, so i actually learned something from this response. Only thing I have a problem with, is the fact it seems like your just agreeing with the author of the article because its popular. I would have liked to have had the link to the article to be able to see if the source was credible, if that was the case you would probably be correct to believe him. however, based on your conclusion you say that you are not an expert, so you don't really know if its correct or not, which is a valid point but I feel by stating this, it makes it seem like you took the popularity approach to it, by believing it because someone else stated it and many other people around the world saw it.

I really find the topic of this summary to be interesting and innovative. However, the credibility of the article is questionable. From what we can see in your summary, the author only uses an experiment on dogs in Budapest. With only one experiment being observed, it raises concerns of validity and reliability. Therefore, the size of sample is not solid.

Also, the premises of the dog brain and the human brain seem to be correlated in a logical sense, but it does not have valid reasoning or proof. The circularity of the premises are being pushed to prove the conclusion of the author without actual facts. They may seem to be related, but it does not necessarily mean they are.
All in all, this experiment is questionable, but would have a lot of potential with a bigger sample size, and actual correlating facts.
-DC

I find it really interesting when people research similarities between our brain and other animals. I'm glad to see someone pick an article on that subject.
However, I think your argument is inductively weak due to the absence of a good connection between your premises and conclusion because you haven't defined the term "speech". With that definition missing, we can't really conclude that speech is the process of words and intonations like you do because there could be something else we're missing without knowing. So basically, the relationship between your premises and the conclusion is weak because without that definition there is not a strong logical connection between them.
I assume that the author of the article did not bother to define the term but I would like to hear about it from you.

Hello:
Your subject is extremely interesting and your article was really well written, but I think you could have developed slightly more your premises. The thing that bothered me is that the conclusion that dogs process information the same way humans do is only based on the fact that we both process information in the same hemisphere of the brain. But a brain hemisphere still has a lot of sub-divisions and even if we process information in the same brain hemisphere we could process it differently. This makes me think that your connection between the premises and conclusion is somehow weak, but I am sure the author of the article had more information and that you could back up your conclusion more.
Thank you,
Floralie

Hi Justice
I chose this article for the first assignment too so I logically find this subject very interesting. I, however, a fallacy is present in the article and in your standardized form. I think your argument related to the conclusion is circular so that make you beg the question. Let me explain you. You pretty much repeated yourself in your argument. You could have easily put all of the four premises and put it in one premise. Maybe this is the cause of a lack of information in the article itself.
Thank you for your time. Don't hesitate to contact me so we can talk about it.

Hello! I didn't know anything about this topic and that dogs use the same part of the aim as humans to process information. I find this extremely interesting, but the thing that I am a little unsure about, I feel like you are begging the question. Your premises seem a little forced in order for them to prove your conclusion. I found your topic very interesting though and don't hesitate to contact me I would be glad to talk more about this!

Hello! I didn't know anything about this topic and that dogs use the same part of the aim as humans to process information. I find this extremely interesting, but the thing that I am a little unsure about, I feel like you are begging the question. Your premises seem a little forced in order for them to prove your conclusion. I found your topic very interesting though and don't hesitate to contact me I would be glad to talk more about this!

Hello! I didn't know anything about this topic and that dogs use the same part of the aim as humans to process information. I find this extremely interesting, but the thing that I am a little unsure about, I feel like you are begging the question. Your premises seem a little forced in order for them to prove your conclusion. I found your topic very interesting though and don't hesitate to contact me I would be glad to talk more about this!

Hello! I didn't know anything about this topic and that dogs use the same part of the aim as humans to process information. I find this extremely interesting, but the thing that I am a little unsure about, I feel like you are begging the question. Your premises seem a little forced in order for them to prove your conclusion. I found your topic very interesting though and don't hesitate to contact me I would be glad to talk more about this!

Hello! I didn't know anything about this topic and that dogs use the same part of the aim as humans to process information. I find this extremely interesting, but the thing that I am a little unsure about, I feel like you are begging the question. Your premises seem a little forced in order for them to prove your conclusion. I found your topic very interesting though and don't hesitate to contact me I would be glad to talk more about this!

Hello! I didn't know anything about this topic and that dogs use the same part of the aim as humans to process information. I find this extremely interesting, but the thing that I am a little unsure about, I feel like you are begging the question. Your premises seem a little forced in order for them to prove your conclusion. I found your topic very interesting though and don't hesitate to contact me I would be glad to talk more about this!

Hi,
I really liked your post because it is interesting to know that dog have more in common with humans than we thought. The fact that you used point form to explain how dogs connect to humans is very smart because it allows the reader to understand the concept easily. I suggest you to read the article '' How beagles and goldens could help researchers find the next cancer therapy for humans'' written by Usha Lee McFarling and published in the scientific magazine Stat. In this article, the author compares dogs and humans in a biological way. In fact, the veterinarian Dr. Michael Kent mentioned in this article is writing a paper on the use of dog's natural killer cells to attack a cancer that is similar in dogs and humans. One interesting thing that the doctor said is: ''for a long time, we’ve looked at humans to see how to treat dogs. We’re starting to do a little bit of the reverse now.'' This claim shows that doctors are starting to progress a different way in medicine by using dogs. Another veterinarian, Dr. Kathryn M. Meurs, also uses dogs, for another purpose. Indeed, Meurs wants to understand why people in the same family with the same ''inherited genetic defect'' exhibit the disease differently. She finds it easier to study this phenomenon with dogs because they can have a lot of offspring in the same litter. The author points out that dogs and cats cancers '' are more biologically relevant to humans than the cancers that are artificially induced in lab animals'' because of the fact that they happen spontaneously. This article is very interesting because it compares a lot the human biology to the dog biology and explains why we can use dogs to find some treatments.