HDLSeanWiley
Follow Uncle Gadget, Brain!
I don't think anyone here will be surprised very much by this analysis of an autistic autism researcher about how much ableism is persistent in the autism research field.
-
Feeling isolated? You're not alone.
Join 20,000+ people who understand exactly how your day went. Whether you're newly diagnosed, self-identified, or supporting someone you love – this is a space where you don't have to explain yourself.
Join the Conversation → It's free, anonymous, and supportive.
As a member, you'll get:
- A community that actually gets it – no judgment, no explanations needed
- Private forums for sensitive topics (hidden from search engines)
- Real-time chat with others who share your experiences
- Your own blog to document your journey
You've found your people. Create your free account
Ableism in autism research
- Thread starter HDLSeanWiley
- Start date
Au Naturel
Au Naturel
All the good science is happening on the biological front.
Any researcher who places values like good or bad on the subject matter or results of their research is a poor researcher. Most of the citations he mentions are the results of people being terrible researchers. Good science has to be as close to value-free as is humanly possible. A lot of poor researchers out there. I hesitate to call them scientists.
The problem is that psychology isn't really "science." It is a vaguely affiliated collection of schools of thought, each with its own dogma, and that colors the conclusions practitioners reach. Sociology is even worse.
Rigor, in the absence of a value-neutral approach, only succeeds in rigorously affirming the values of the researcher. That's why I distrust science advocacy. Confirmation bias reigns supreme.
Can psychology ever become a science? Here's a fascinating PDF on the topic:
https://scottlilienfeld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/lilienfeld2010-1.pdf
I like his quote of Feynman that ‘science is "bending over backward to prove ourselves wrong.”
Any researcher who places values like good or bad on the subject matter or results of their research is a poor researcher. Most of the citations he mentions are the results of people being terrible researchers. Good science has to be as close to value-free as is humanly possible. A lot of poor researchers out there. I hesitate to call them scientists.
The problem is that psychology isn't really "science." It is a vaguely affiliated collection of schools of thought, each with its own dogma, and that colors the conclusions practitioners reach. Sociology is even worse.
Psychology isn't science. ... Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.
Los Angeles Times,, July 13, 2012.
Los Angeles Times,, July 13, 2012.
Rigor, in the absence of a value-neutral approach, only succeeds in rigorously affirming the values of the researcher. That's why I distrust science advocacy. Confirmation bias reigns supreme.
Can psychology ever become a science? Here's a fascinating PDF on the topic:
https://scottlilienfeld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/lilienfeld2010-1.pdf
I like his quote of Feynman that ‘science is "bending over backward to prove ourselves wrong.”
Last edited:
Psychology has always had a reproducibility problem. This leaves me wondering what is the best one can expect in psychological assistance. I have an appointment tomorrow to begin some help for the PTSD that keeps cropping up when remembering times of isolation.
Before we get caught up in trashing the soft sciences, check out Peter Woits blog currently ongoing discussion about physics issues with what is proper science.
Incidentally even the math guys have their issues see the debate on the ABC conjecture.
Incidentally even the math guys have their issues see the debate on the ABC conjecture.
Last edited:
In typical academic autistic fashion,...thorough, and well-written. Now, if only the others in the field would read it in order to re-examine their perspective. So-called neurotypicals have a long list of dysfunctional behaviors,...but those are "normal", so I guess it's OK to them. We all have our "issues", but as I have said many times I would not want to be another monkey in their circus, even if it is "normal". Quite content being the "alien observer" at this point in my life.
Some day soon, I hope, with all the functional MRI studies, and some agreement within the field of neurology,...that autism diagnosis will be made in the neurologist office and not in the psychologist office.
I downloaded it and will have to read it again. Thanks.
Au Naturel
Au Naturel
Wobbly science can have bad consequences, physical sciences included.
Back when the global warming/climate change debate was really raging, advocates on both sides of the issue put forth a profound amount of junk science. There were a couple of well publicized cases where emails were sent about how to tweak ambiguous data to fit what they were "supposed" to find. Pro-climate change junk science became a hook for anti-climate change advocates to hang their hats on. Consequently, the good research that had been done to solidly support the notion that something was happening and it was likely anthropogenic were more easily dismissed as lies and propaganda by people who don't like the data.
Every time science becomes the basis on which political decisions are made, science is in danger of not being science any more. Especially since scientific literacy has never been the basis on which we select our leaders.
New Threads
-
A mini honest talk my idea for a mini video series- Started by Jenisautistic
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
