I'll tell you the problem I'm having with your opinions.
Firstly, 'science' is your mantra, but you seem unaware of the difficulties arising when attempting 'scientific' studies of people and animals as opposed to studying 'things'. That's why I want links to the studies you are quoting.
Secondly, you are assuming that a few studies done on a few handlers and dogs can be applied to all handlers and dogs. That would depend on sample sizes and methodology being adequate. Another reason why I would like to see the studies.
Thirdly, even if the data is perfectly fine, does it definitely apply to Eddie and Keela in particular, and to these alerts in particular? None of us know, so we know nothing more at the end of it all except that some dogs in some situations gave false alerts.
Please note that I have never said that these types of dogs are error-free, so I have no need to support that view. You say they are, and you refer to studies but refuse completely to provide links. I can only assume you cannot.
You misunderstand how science works at its most basic. It is founded on Socratic Ignorance. The initial position for any scientific investigation is 'I do not know anything'. Then I or someone else says 'maybe so and so is the case'. That thesis having been made, information is sought to support that view. Now se know from the case of the Black Swan that induction (continued production of merely supportive information) is a common sense way of supporting truth, but we know from logic that this is ineffective (the sun will rise tomorrow because it has always risen, all swans that have been observed are white, therefore all swans are white). So we then move towards what is known as the principle of falsification which introduces deduction in addition to induction. By this we mean that we look at the thesis and consider what fact would destroy the thesis and then seek to falsify the thesis in every way possible to human reason and experimentation. Ideas that pass this test become scientific fact. This is as applicable to human sciences as to physical s Jencks, the difference only being in methods of experimentation, the underlying rationale being the same for both.
So the question is "what do we know about dog alerts to different odours" and we (I) start from the position that we know nothing about this. You (or other investigators) assert that there is a relationship between alerts and odours present, so start out finding supportive evidence (induction) of which there is plenty. But to prove any reliability, the thesis needs to survive falsification (introducing deduction). This requires asserters to defend their thesis against sceptics who will say "what level of certainty if any", "what about cueing", "how do we explain false positives and false negatives", and so on.
So, I am a sceptic- I do not know how effective scent dogs are because I have learned as a scientist to dismiss common sense and actually derive facts from the world by scientific method. As such I have nothing to prove.
So, you (or other asserters) bear the burden of proof (as in law).
If you believe dogs are 'x' effective, prove it.
