Nagel was saying that we can't have experiential knowledge of what it is like to be a bat, we don't have access to the qualia of a dog. Just as one human doesn't have access to the qualia of another human.
Empirically showing that dogs have feelings/emotions doesn't show that Nagel was wrong about this. It's something completely different
songwritingimprover t1_ja546o8 wrote
Reply to Neuroscientist Gregory Berns argues that Thomas Nagel was wrong: neuroscience can give us knowledge about what it is like to be an animal. For example, his own fMRI studies on dogs have shown that they can feel genuine affection for their owners. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Nagel was saying that we can't have experiential knowledge of what it is like to be a bat, we don't have access to the qualia of a dog. Just as one human doesn't have access to the qualia of another human.
Empirically showing that dogs have feelings/emotions doesn't show that Nagel was wrong about this. It's something completely different