It reminds me of the cheap trick used by some people with just a smattering of psych knowledge. You say something like, "You desire to sleep with your mother, but you're repressing it." The person says, "Ick... no, I have no desire to sleep with my mother." And the person says, "Exactly, you're repressing it. The more you deny it, the more it just shows you can't handle your desire to sleep with your mother."
That's not science as it's not falsifiable, and it's not argueable with except by recognizing that the person's point of view is worthless and not worth discussing.
Likewise, they say - if you can say that autism shouldn't be viewed as something to cure, then your opinion is inherently worthless.
Well, there's no way out of an argument like that. It's a shame so many people fall for things like that.
Falsifiable means that there is some form of evidence or some test that could be run that would show the hypothesis to be false. It doesn't have to be anything easy to do, but it has to be theoretically possible. Otherwise it falls into the category of faith, not science.
The premise that God exists is not falsifiable. It may or may not be true, but since there is no conceivable form of evidence that would definitively show that no God exists, it is not science.
While there can be good things outside the realm of science, it is important to recognize that they cannot be supported in the same way. The positions are weaker. You need evidence to support your view and potential tests to deny your view. This is why Newton's laws of physics were good science. They were very easily tested and potentially falsifiable. They were such good models of most physical behavior that they weren't shown to not be totally accurate until Einstein came along. And we still respect them as good models for most uses. However, if objects that had more mass and greater density started falling up, we'd know that our understanding of gravity needed serious revision.
Yup, that's right. So, if your statement is - all pie is apple-flavored, it is potentially falsifiable by finding/baking a pie that is not apple-flavored.
This would disprove the hypothesis and it wouldn't be accepted as part of science. But if it is potentially falsifiable, but no one has managed to prove it false, and there is evidence to support it, then it will generally be accepted.
Nothing in science is accepted 100%, because it's always possible for some deeper understanding to show it's not completely true. But the more evidence in support, the more strongly it is accepted.
Also, a single study that seems to falsify it won't always be accepted, because it's likely due to experimental error/forgery/etc. But if you can reproduce the conditions that falsify it or many people found the same evidence to falsify it, then it's generally shown to be wrong.
I'd rather not. They'd likely see it as a weakness of science, rather than its greatest strength. Then they'd be all - so, science is not capable of letting us truly understand the world. Let's instead proclaim to just know everything and tell those who disagree with us that they are insufficiently enlightened. We can tell, because were they sufficiently enlightened, they'd agree with us.
Hypocrites, every one of them. They accept the principles of radioactive decay when it suits them, but not when it comes to carbon dating. They accept that we can breed animals and plants (and we make new ones every so often, this is an ongoing process), but don't agree with evolution because... why, exactly?
It occurs to me that if a basis of their argument is that the only "true" autistics are those who are incapable of communicating, then their techniques and proposed treatments only apply to those completely incapable of communicating.
Which isn't sufficient to stop the damage, but it does help to limit it. I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments. It might be worth using in rebuttals.
The ones who are judged as completely incapable of communicating (not the same thing as actually being unable to communicate, except for the part where people don't understand what's going on) are the ones who need the most protection, since, y'know, they can't complain in such a way that people will actually listen. I mean, I know your point, but.
I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments.
Last I heard from Weintraub (another person of this ilk), she was mad at her son for wanting to dress up as Mickey Mouse for Halloween, because, as she said, "It's no fun to be different". She fully supports the rights of parents to "cure" Asperger's...
This is as good a place as any to say this so here goes.
Thank you, Connie. Before I started reading your journal I had no real understanding at all of what Autism is. I had never heard of Asperger's, and like many people, my idea of an autist was centered around Dustin Hoffman's performance in Rain Man.
In the few months I have been following your journal, you have opened my eyes to the wide variety of people on the Spectrum, and the various opinions about what should be 'done about' them. You've helped me to gain some small understanding where there was none (and probably negative, to tell the truth) before. I read the articles you post with a great deal of interest. I have come to understand that autism can be considered a difference, and not a disease. Most of all, you have helped me to see something about myself - namely that before I understand something I fear it, and that I need to seek out more opportunities to grow in understanding. Thinking back on the ways I previously thought is almost painful, much like looking back on previously held opinions that were based in homophobia. It startles me that I can be so insensitive, so stupid.
Sorry to gush, I know it's probably awkward. Don't worry, I'm not making you a spokesperson or anything. You just opened a door for me, and I thought you should know.
It reminds me of the cheap trick used by some people with just a smattering of psych knowledge. You say something like, "You desire to sleep with your mother, but you're repressing it." The person says, "Ick... no, I have no desire to sleep with my mother." And the person says, "Exactly, you're repressing it. The more you deny it, the more it just shows you can't handle your desire to sleep with your mother."
That's not science as it's not falsifiable, and it's not argueable with except by recognizing that the person's point of view is worthless and not worth discussing.
Likewise, they say - if you can say that autism shouldn't be viewed as something to cure, then your opinion is inherently worthless.
Well, there's no way out of an argument like that. It's a shame so many people fall for things like that.
Falsifiable means that there is some form of evidence or some test that could be run that would show the hypothesis to be false. It doesn't have to be anything easy to do, but it has to be theoretically possible. Otherwise it falls into the category of faith, not science.
The premise that God exists is not falsifiable. It may or may not be true, but since there is no conceivable form of evidence that would definitively show that no God exists, it is not science.
While there can be good things outside the realm of science, it is important to recognize that they cannot be supported in the same way. The positions are weaker. You need evidence to support your view and potential tests to deny your view. This is why Newton's laws of physics were good science. They were very easily tested and potentially falsifiable. They were such good models of most physical behavior that they weren't shown to not be totally accurate until Einstein came along. And we still respect them as good models for most uses. However, if objects that had more mass and greater density started falling up, we'd know that our understanding of gravity needed serious revision.
Yup, that's right. So, if your statement is - all pie is apple-flavored, it is potentially falsifiable by finding/baking a pie that is not apple-flavored.
This would disprove the hypothesis and it wouldn't be accepted as part of science. But if it is potentially falsifiable, but no one has managed to prove it false, and there is evidence to support it, then it will generally be accepted.
Nothing in science is accepted 100%, because it's always possible for some deeper understanding to show it's not completely true. But the more evidence in support, the more strongly it is accepted.
Also, a single study that seems to falsify it won't always be accepted, because it's likely due to experimental error/forgery/etc. But if you can reproduce the conditions that falsify it or many people found the same evidence to falsify it, then it's generally shown to be wrong.
I'd rather not. They'd likely see it as a weakness of science, rather than its greatest strength. Then they'd be all - so, science is not capable of letting us truly understand the world. Let's instead proclaim to just know everything and tell those who disagree with us that they are insufficiently enlightened. We can tell, because were they sufficiently enlightened, they'd agree with us.
Hypocrites, every one of them. They accept the principles of radioactive decay when it suits them, but not when it comes to carbon dating. They accept that we can breed animals and plants (and we make new ones every so often, this is an ongoing process), but don't agree with evolution because... why, exactly?
It occurs to me that if a basis of their argument is that the only "true" autistics are those who are incapable of communicating, then their techniques and proposed treatments only apply to those completely incapable of communicating.
Which isn't sufficient to stop the damage, but it does help to limit it. I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments. It might be worth using in rebuttals.
The ones who are judged as completely incapable of communicating (not the same thing as actually being unable to communicate, except for the part where people don't understand what's going on) are the ones who need the most protection, since, y'know, they can't complain in such a way that people will actually listen. I mean, I know your point, but.
I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments.
Last I heard from Weintraub (another person of this ilk), she was mad at her son for wanting to dress up as Mickey Mouse for Halloween, because, as she said, "It's no fun to be different". She fully supports the rights of parents to "cure" Asperger's...
This is as good a place as any to say this so here goes.
Thank you, Connie. Before I started reading your journal I had no real understanding at all of what Autism is. I had never heard of Asperger's, and like many people, my idea of an autist was centered around Dustin Hoffman's performance in Rain Man.
In the few months I have been following your journal, you have opened my eyes to the wide variety of people on the Spectrum, and the various opinions about what should be 'done about' them. You've helped me to gain some small understanding where there was none (and probably negative, to tell the truth) before. I read the articles you post with a great deal of interest. I have come to understand that autism can be considered a difference, and not a disease. Most of all, you have helped me to see something about myself - namely that before I understand something I fear it, and that I need to seek out more opportunities to grow in understanding. Thinking back on the ways I previously thought is almost painful, much like looking back on previously held opinions that were based in homophobia. It startles me that I can be so insensitive, so stupid.
Sorry to gush, I know it's probably awkward. Don't worry, I'm not making you a spokesperson or anything. You just opened a door for me, and I thought you should know.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 06:03 pm (UTC)That's not science as it's not falsifiable, and it's not argueable with except by recognizing that the person's point of view is worthless and not worth discussing.
Likewise, they say - if you can say that autism shouldn't be viewed as something to cure, then your opinion is inherently worthless.
Well, there's no way out of an argument like that. It's a shame so many people fall for things like that.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:25 pm (UTC)The premise that God exists is not falsifiable. It may or may not be true, but since there is no conceivable form of evidence that would definitively show that no God exists, it is not science.
While there can be good things outside the realm of science, it is important to recognize that they cannot be supported in the same way. The positions are weaker. You need evidence to support your view and potential tests to deny your view. This is why Newton's laws of physics were good science. They were very easily tested and potentially falsifiable. They were such good models of most physical behavior that they weren't shown to not be totally accurate until Einstein came along. And we still respect them as good models for most uses. However, if objects that had more mass and greater density started falling up, we'd know that our understanding of gravity needed serious revision.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:34 pm (UTC)I gotta now.
So, saying: all Apple-flavored Pie is falsifiable?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:49 pm (UTC)sssh.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:39 pm (UTC)This would disprove the hypothesis and it wouldn't be accepted as part of science. But if it is potentially falsifiable, but no one has managed to prove it false, and there is evidence to support it, then it will generally be accepted.
Nothing in science is accepted 100%, because it's always possible for some deeper understanding to show it's not completely true. But the more evidence in support, the more strongly it is accepted.
Also, a single study that seems to falsify it won't always be accepted, because it's likely due to experimental error/forgery/etc. But if you can reproduce the conditions that falsify it or many people found the same evidence to falsify it, then it's generally shown to be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:48 pm (UTC)See, this is why I like Conuly's friends. They're smaert! :D
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:37 pm (UTC)Gravity? HERETIC! Gravity is a theory, not a fact.
I shall pray for you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:43 pm (UTC)And that's just not a fun conversation to be in.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:50 pm (UTC)Sorry, this is my rantling.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:51 pm (UTC)Which isn't sufficient to stop the damage, but it does help to limit it. I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments. It might be worth using in rebuttals.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:57 pm (UTC)I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments.
Last I heard from Weintraub (another person of this ilk), she was mad at her son for wanting to dress up as Mickey Mouse for Halloween, because, as she said, "It's no fun to be different". She fully supports the rights of parents to "cure" Asperger's...
Yeah.
*sighs*
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 08:02 pm (UTC)Some people should not be allowed to have children.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:27 am (UTC)Thank you, Connie. Before I started reading your journal I had no real understanding at all of what Autism is. I had never heard of Asperger's, and like many people, my idea of an autist was centered around Dustin Hoffman's performance in Rain Man.
In the few months I have been following your journal, you have opened my eyes to the wide variety of people on the Spectrum, and the various opinions about what should be 'done about' them. You've helped me to gain some small understanding where there was none (and probably negative, to tell the truth) before. I read the articles you post with a great deal of interest. I have come to understand that autism can be considered a difference, and not a disease. Most of all, you have helped me to see something about myself - namely that before I understand something I fear it, and that I need to seek out more opportunities to grow in understanding. Thinking back on the ways I previously thought is almost painful, much like looking back on previously held opinions that were based in homophobia. It startles me that I can be so insensitive, so stupid.
So, thank you. Thank you for waking me up.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:54 am (UTC)You're welcome.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 06:03 pm (UTC)That's not science as it's not falsifiable, and it's not argueable with except by recognizing that the person's point of view is worthless and not worth discussing.
Likewise, they say - if you can say that autism shouldn't be viewed as something to cure, then your opinion is inherently worthless.
Well, there's no way out of an argument like that. It's a shame so many people fall for things like that.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:25 pm (UTC)The premise that God exists is not falsifiable. It may or may not be true, but since there is no conceivable form of evidence that would definitively show that no God exists, it is not science.
While there can be good things outside the realm of science, it is important to recognize that they cannot be supported in the same way. The positions are weaker. You need evidence to support your view and potential tests to deny your view. This is why Newton's laws of physics were good science. They were very easily tested and potentially falsifiable. They were such good models of most physical behavior that they weren't shown to not be totally accurate until Einstein came along. And we still respect them as good models for most uses. However, if objects that had more mass and greater density started falling up, we'd know that our understanding of gravity needed serious revision.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:34 pm (UTC)I gotta now.
So, saying: all Apple-flavored Pie is falsifiable?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:49 pm (UTC)sssh.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:39 pm (UTC)This would disprove the hypothesis and it wouldn't be accepted as part of science. But if it is potentially falsifiable, but no one has managed to prove it false, and there is evidence to support it, then it will generally be accepted.
Nothing in science is accepted 100%, because it's always possible for some deeper understanding to show it's not completely true. But the more evidence in support, the more strongly it is accepted.
Also, a single study that seems to falsify it won't always be accepted, because it's likely due to experimental error/forgery/etc. But if you can reproduce the conditions that falsify it or many people found the same evidence to falsify it, then it's generally shown to be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:48 pm (UTC)See, this is why I like Conuly's friends. They're smaert! :D
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:37 pm (UTC)Gravity? HERETIC! Gravity is a theory, not a fact.
I shall pray for you.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:43 pm (UTC)And that's just not a fun conversation to be in.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:50 pm (UTC)Sorry, this is my rantling.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:51 pm (UTC)Which isn't sufficient to stop the damage, but it does help to limit it. I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments. It might be worth using in rebuttals.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 07:57 pm (UTC)I suspect they do not hold to this point though when actually proposing autistic treatments.
Last I heard from Weintraub (another person of this ilk), she was mad at her son for wanting to dress up as Mickey Mouse for Halloween, because, as she said, "It's no fun to be different". She fully supports the rights of parents to "cure" Asperger's...
Yeah.
*sighs*
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 08:02 pm (UTC)Some people should not be allowed to have children.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:27 am (UTC)Thank you, Connie. Before I started reading your journal I had no real understanding at all of what Autism is. I had never heard of Asperger's, and like many people, my idea of an autist was centered around Dustin Hoffman's performance in Rain Man.
In the few months I have been following your journal, you have opened my eyes to the wide variety of people on the Spectrum, and the various opinions about what should be 'done about' them. You've helped me to gain some small understanding where there was none (and probably negative, to tell the truth) before. I read the articles you post with a great deal of interest. I have come to understand that autism can be considered a difference, and not a disease. Most of all, you have helped me to see something about myself - namely that before I understand something I fear it, and that I need to seek out more opportunities to grow in understanding. Thinking back on the ways I previously thought is almost painful, much like looking back on previously held opinions that were based in homophobia. It startles me that I can be so insensitive, so stupid.
So, thank you. Thank you for waking me up.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 11:54 am (UTC)You're welcome.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 12:25 pm (UTC)