4 ms·

The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis (that vitamin D deficiency causes autism, or at least increases

The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis (that vitamin D deficiency causes autism, or at least increases the risk of it) so it should be either confirmed or disproved by further studies.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
It's already researched to hell. This has been clear from the evidence for a long time now. It just contradicts the dogma.
- StrawberryFrog 18y ago
  See the para near the end: "However, I will concede that thus far there is no definitive study that would leave no doubt that this hypothesis is correct. This, more than anything else, is what's needed to really convince people to dramatically change their practices"
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Have the studies also been published exclusively in hell, or can you provide a citation?
jbert 18y ago
Agreed. The hypothesis is interesting, but the phraseology and assembly of info reads a bit like a kook. But as you say - it's a testable hypothesis, so I don't care how it's been written up, it would be good to test this.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis Anybody can put forward a testable hypothesis. That doesn't make you a good scientist. A good scientist is one who puts forward a testable hypothesis and then tests it before publishing. A great scientist is one who creates a testable hypothesis, tests it, and then -- when the data fail to prove the hypothesis -- shrugs, publishes the definitive refutation of her own hypothesis, and moves on to something else. It took me years to realize just how rare a skill this is, even for scientists. Part of the problem is that the career system for scientists actively discourages this -- once you've finally managed to sell a line of research to a funding agency, there are very strong incentives to keep that research going, even if it isn't getting anywhere.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago

It's already researched to hell. This has been clear from the evidence for a long time now. It just contradicts the dogma.

StrawberryFrog 18y ago
See the para near the end: "However, I will concede that thus far there is no definitive study that would leave no doubt that this hypothesis is correct. This, more than anything else, is what's needed to really convince people to dramatically change their practices"
mechanical_fish 18y ago
Have the studies also been published exclusively in hell, or can you provide a citation?

jbert 18y ago

Agreed. The hypothesis is interesting, but the phraseology and assembly of info reads a bit like a kook. But as you say - it's a testable hypothesis, so I don't care how it's been written up, it would be good to test this.

mechanical_fish 18y ago

The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis Anybody can put forward a testable hypothesis. That doesn't make you a good scientist. A good scientist is one who puts forward a testable hypothesis and then tests it before publishing. A great scientist is one who creates a testable hypothesis, tests it, and then -- when the data fail to prove the hypothesis -- shrugs, publishes the definitive refutation of her own hypothesis, and moves on to something else. It took me years to realize just how rare a skill this is, even for scientists. Part of the problem is that the career system for scientists actively discourages this -- once you've finally managed to sell a line of research to a funding agency, there are very strong incentives to keep that research going, even if it isn't getting anywhere.