3 ms·
It sounds like you're starting from exactly the same bias that these researchers are attempting to correct. From earlier in that same paragraph: > A shift from
by delecti 3y ago
It sounds like you're starting from exactly the same bias that these researchers are attempting to correct. From earlier in that same paragraph:
> A shift from the medical to a more social model has also seen advocacy for it to be reframed as a difference, rather than a disorder or deficit
If you start from the presumption that autism is a disorder, you're more likely to identify difficulties, and less likely to identify strengths. And indeed, this article focuses on some strengths they identified by taking a different angle.
And the very next sentence after the one you quoted very clearly acknowledges that the strength the article discusses is directly related to a difficulty that autistic people have:
> Psychology and perception researcher David Simmons and colleagues at the University of Glasgow were the first to suggest that while high neural noise is generally a disadvantage in autism, it can sometimes provide benefits due to a phenomenon called stochastic resonance.
- constantcrying 3y agoIf you replace the bias that it is "bad" with the bias that it is "good" you have achieved exactly nothing. Medicine considers disorders which are "bad" because it wants to help. A disorder which people do not consider "bad" is automatically ignored by medicine.
- dwaltrip 3y agoAll research makes assumptions. You can’t test everything about the universe in each experiment. The nice thing about science is that others can then challenge those assumptions, if they think it’s worthwhile.
- constantcrying 3y agoIf your research assumes the outcome of the research it isn't research, it is wish fulfillment. It is totally disingenuous to claim I am "against science making assumptions". Obviously. Why do you feel the need to lie like that?
- galacticbang 3y agoHaven’t you just described a hypothesis? Hypotheses describe what you think will be the outcome of the research based on the researchers’ current observations and understanding of the world. Scientists aren’t neutral observers standing outside the world. They have inherent biases and those biases shape the research that they conduct. It is both the scientific method and the scientific review process that are supposed to ensure, despite these biases, that the research was sound and the findings valid.
- constantcrying 3y agoNo. Because you have to be agnostic to the truth of the hypothesis. A good experiment does not try to confirm the hypothesis, a good experiment tests the hypothesis. For that it has to be open for disproving the hypothesis. Setting up an experiment with the goal of demonstrating a hypothesis and then doing everything you can to achieve that goal is exactly how the replication crisis happened. That is why p-hacking occurs. Of course scientists are biased, but they need to try to avoid it to do research. Embracing bias, "because everyone is biased" is ridiculous and legitimately insane.