Positive Association as a Science

Science gives us insight into nature, and reminds us that our observations shape what we know.
Scientists rely on knowledge and intuition to construct a tentative explanation (hypothesis) about what has happened (or will happen). 
Ask any scientist, this reasoning is correct.

Subject: Kitsune. Shiba Inu (known to be aloof). 3 years old. Neutered. Adopted at age 11months from a Philadelphia rescue group. Not socialized and fearful of strange objects/people.

Kitsune, looking at me with very trusting, relaxed eyes.

Observation1: Kitsune is afraid of strange people, runs from and barks at them.

Observation2: Repetitious positive association helps him gain confidence around new people. Positive association is gained through food items. Distance between Kitsune and that which he fears decreases when food is presented to associate the positive. Kitsune barks less when food is presented to associate the positive.


Observation3: Kitsune is heavily food motivated.

Hypothesis: Kitsune can learn to be less fearful of people through positive reinforcement (association, repetitively) with the help of food, as he is food motivated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My reason for posting this is - if other methods of training (for this example, perhaps someone would "shoosh/touch" like cesar, use a negative reinforcer - like taking something good away if kitsu barked - spraying him with water, or went extreme and zapped him for reacting) might seem to produce the same results as positive reinforcement (perhaps produce results faster, that may or may not last)... but may have a lasting negative affect on the dog... why not just always go the positive route?
 If trust, confidence and a positive relationship with your dog are important, that is.

Am I missing something vital here? Does this make sense? Any thoughts?

[please keep it civil, I have had to move back to comment moderating again. Ugh. Discussions are not always invitations for conflict and hostility]