Evaluation of "inside of a Dog"

In 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 umwelt...their subjective or 'self-world'" (Horowitz 20). In her bestseller Inside of a Dog, Alexandra Horowitz uses von Uexküll's 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 dog's 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 Horowitz's 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