Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Understanding the world through stories was a good strategy in the environment of our evolutionary history but is far too flawed to deal with the complex world we live in today. In fact, the discipline of science developed as a tool to go beyond the efficient but flawed techniques we evolved. Perhaps, for example, your friend became ill because of the raw eggs he consumed earlier in the day, and the plant had nothing to do with it. Evolutionary pressures favored a more simplistic approach to nature, one that tended to assume that apparent patterns were real.
In today’s modern society we are confronted with a dizzying array of apparent patterns and using the simple rules of thumb we evolved to deal with them is not adequate. Whether or not a treatment works for a symptom or disease is a good example. Symptoms tend to vary over time, some may spontaneously remit, and our perceptions of symptoms are susceptible to a host of psychological factors. There are also numerous biological factors that may have an effect. If we are to make reliable decisions about the effects of specific interventions on symptoms and diseases we will need to do better than uncontrolled observation, or anecdotes.
The primary weakness of anecdotes as evidence is that they are not controlled. This opens them up to many hidden variables that could potentially affect the results. We therefore cannot make any reliable assumptions about which variable (for example a specific treatment) was responsible for any apparent improvement.
I'm not buying this study at face value. Seems to me, if you have 2 children close in age, and one is already diagnosed with autism, you are going to probably be more noticing of things you might think are signs, rather than a child in a family with much older children (or much younger) where there is no one to 'compare' with.
That study isn't saying one is already diagnosed with autism. The study is saying that the second child will be more likely to have autism, not the first.
You can find any "study" to support ANY issue you wish. That's why there are grants. I personally have 4 immediate friends that have ONLY children that are autistic. Ohhh, maybe I should request a grant to conduct a study.
You can find any "study" to support ANY issue you wish. That's why there are grants. I personally have 4 immediate friends that have ONLY children that are autistic. Ohhh, maybe I should request a grant to conduct a study.
Exactly!!!
For some silly reason, people put too much stock in "studies". Those things are manipulated to prove only one thing: The author's theory.
There are as many studies that contradict as agree. I find them useless.
Autism is to a certain point hereditary. Yes, that's right. I worked with autistic kids in the past. I have had families with 2, and 3 and even 4 kids in one family who were all autistic. There were also cousins to these families who were autistic. I know one autistic child whose father has another family with an autistic daughter. The only failproof way to prevent autism is to use birth control or live a childfree lifestyle. There is no cure and never will be. It's a developmental disability. When you choose to have kids, that's a risk you take. For those parents who really can't deal with an autistic child or adult can put them in an IRA group home. Sometimes it's truly unbearable and pure hell, especially if the autistic is a danger to him/herself or/and to society.
Anecdotes are nice, but not data. That's why this needs more study.
Thanks for the condescension, but honestly, you can do your own 'study' and find the opposite. It all depends on what you're looking for.
It's seriously too bad that you lean so heavily on 'studies' that you can't think for yourself. In a lifetime I have known thousands of people, and NOT ONE has been 'autistic'. NOT ONE. A person would have to be an imbicile to believe in a study, or theory of a few hundred selected people over a lifetime of experience. Really.
Even the author of that 'study' calls other studies "junk science". That tells you what they think of each other.
ANYBODY can do a 'study', and ANYBODY can make it come out the way that supports their own personal theory.
Thanks for the condescension, but honestly, you can do your own 'study' and find the opposite. It all depends on what you're looking for.
It's seriously too bad that you lean so heavily on 'studies' that you can't think for yourself. In a lifetime I have known thousands of people, and NOT ONE has been 'autistic'. NOT ONE. A person would have to be an imbicile to believe in a study, or theory of a few hundred selected people over a lifetime of experience. Really.
Even the author of that 'study' calls other studies "junk science". That tells you what they think of each other.
ANYBODY can do a 'study', and ANYBODY can make it come out the way that supports their own personal theory.
Let me see if I interpret you correctly. Is your position that because you have never known anybody that's autistic, therefore nobody is autistic?
If you have NO experience with autism, NONE, then what is the relevance of this lifetime of experience of which you speak? I believe Nana's grandson is autistic. Her life experience, in this matter, trumps yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
