Odd question from another autistic

[Outdated]

Only when a body of evidence, reproduced in many scientific studies, is consistent can we begin to be comfortable in saying something is true.

Sadly some people don't want evidence. They don't want complex answers that would upset their world view regardless of how compelling and based in fact those answers may be. It's just easier for them to believe:

Electricity works by magic fairies and autistic people have been cursed by a witch.

There's no point trying to set those people straight, you can show them all the hard evidence you like and they'll ignore it in favour of their own simplistic views.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Do not dismiss Occam's razor, that cavalierly .

 

[Outdated]

Do not dismiss Occam's razor, that cavalierly .

Occam's Razor makes a perfect example of this. How many people preferred to believe that pyramids had magic power rather than wondering if the man was a cheat and a liar?

 

[Hypnalis]

In reference to the link - I appreciate your sense of humor. Regarding more serious matters

That wasn't a joke. I thought you might get the point that "neurological" doesn't imply ASD. Your denial kicking in made me laugh though, so definitely a win

This is my second question – if autism is not a neurological disorder then what is it?

This question makes no sense. You'd be better off asking (as you should have earlier), "If Mamba venom is a neurological toxin, why doesn't it cause ASD?".

BTW that AI-sounding text is the most unconvincing thing you've posted yet.
There's no room for "weasel words" when stating scientific facts.

They're ok when e.g. describing a hypotheses that's going to be tested, but not as a way to present facts. Rather the opposite: weasel words used to make claims are a fairly good indicator that the claims are not supported by the data.

On a parallel topic: AI's have a weakness for that kind of nonsense that will be very difficult to remove, because NT communication is also full of it.

 

[Mary Terry]

Yes, you are correct, I don't know if the child was born with autism or acquired it due to the parental misguidance; I'm not the one who diagnosed him. The article authors diagnosed him with the acquired autism. Did they come to the correct conclusion? It is not for me to judge their methodic. It is clear to me that they didn't use statistical data to draw their conclusion. Basically, what I did was the inclusion of their data into the overall autism statistics. It is quite possible that their method of diagnostics is incorrect, but I don't even know what their methodic is.
When I do my evaluation of any statistical data, I am responsible for my conclusions, which is not the case of this boy. Sometimes data analysts rely on other professionals' research, sometimes they don't. In rare cases like this one it is common to accept the outside investigation because the case itself is of practically zero significance.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I will stick with the conclusions of qualified professionals regarding autism causation rather than scroll through the internet looking for obscure, unproven, provocative and previously debunked theories about autism. Disinformation and misinformation are worthless to scientists but are used by some people to manipulate others.

 

[vergil96]

that "neurological" doesn't imply ASD.

Of course not

There is a myriad of neurological diseases

Reading comprehension matters when reading scientific articles. They are very specific and mean no more no less than is literally said. Being critical about poor methodology is also crucial.

But

Sadly some people don't want evidence. They don't want complex answers that would upset their world view regardless of how compelling and based in fact those answers may be. It's just easier for them to believe:

This

 

[NB79]

People forget, or ignore, that we are spiritual beings, not just piece of meat.
There can be things affecting your spiritual side.
I know i know, i would be called nuts for saying this by the atheists.
But the more you know.