So dominance-based training when applied improperly can have unwanted side effects. This is of course an aspect of research that needs to be considered; however, the same is the case with any other training method.

No, it's not. Clicker training is the standard in zoos and aquariums, and it has no fallout. Operant and classical conditioning are the standard for training, and every single behaviorist society has a position statement against the use of dominance training.

The idea that dominance is not a scientific concept is patently ridiculous.

That depends of whether or not we are talking about the hierarchy known as dominance, or the training method of dominance. Dominance based training is not recommended by ANY behaviorist's society or board.

Let that sink in: None of the training paradigms that have been suggested as alternatives to dominance-based training have even a quarter of the research behind them that dominance-based training has. If they ever will be investigated to the same depth as dominance-based training has been, you can bet your sweet behind that a whole lot more problems will come to the surface than are currently known.

Bullshit. BF Skinner's work in behaviorism showed very clearly that conditioning works and it is a great alternative. Conditioning works on all species. Positive reinforcement/negative punishment is the standard training method for pet dogs under the AVSAB. Counter conditioning and desensitization is the standard rehabilitation procedure.

It reliably allows you to explain, predict, and modify behavior. It makes falsifiable predictions that have not been falsified and are unlikely to be after 80 years of people trying and failing. There is more research supporting it than any other paradigm of behavioral science that has been proposed so far.

Provide evidence for this claim.