“And notice this time that it took him all of three days to come up with a comment that said absolutely nothing.”

Indeed. Most the time, I can’t figure out what he’s trying to say. His sloppy use of the language, punctuation, and pronouns makes it difficult to determine just what he means.

“Notice also the bit where he says: “.he does does much to prove ms dawson’s (and others) promotional science opine.”

And I’m sure that his oft mentioning of her name (and probable mischaracterization of her statements) antagonizes her all the more, since she believes (rightly or wrongly) that she is not permitted to comment here (or just on this thread) to defend her positions.

Stanley, shut the hell up! You’re just making a fool of yourself, and not doing your position (whatever it is) any good.

I ask the LBRB team to mercifully close this thread.

And notice this time that it took him all of three days to come up with a comment that said absolutely nothing. Notice also the bit where he says: “.he does does much to prove ms dawson’s (and others) promotional science opine.”

Hasn’t even read what I wrote, has he? I actually want the science first and then – if the method holds up – the promotion. Weird that he calls for the promotion first on FC and absolutely no science, when he wants science first on the ABA treatment stuff. Talk about inconsistency of thinking! Regardless of what the thing (diet, FC, DTT, etc) is, I always want the science to be done first because that’s whe only way we’ll know what works, how it works, for whom it works and why.

This is my last post on the topic. I’ve no doubt that Seigler will be anal enough to try to come back with a riposte, but it won’t have much new content. I think we all know now what his mentality is.

I feel sad for his daughter. Hope he treats we better than he treats this autistic person whom he admits to having been (at least in his purile mind) goading: “feel bad egging him on…but he is a fiddle so easily played…and his ilk does much harm.”

I think we already know that it is Seigler’s type than ‘does much harm’.

I’m out.

i have to speak out (cant keep my trap shut) when soft scientists using questionable science are on a crusade to imprison many on the spectrum in the “silent fortress”..

on the fun side:

also hard to keep my trap shut when having fun watching someone destroy his credibility… and that of behavioral science (BS) with vindictive, “scientific” personal, attacks…

it is humorous (tho sad) to watch a med-cspe attack (what a wasted education) one he believes should crawl back under a rock…reckon cspe cant resist useing sticks and stones science …

feel bad egging him on…but he is a fiddle so easily played…and his ilk does much harm.

nice cspe has learned, foul language does nothing to advance an argument…ie, lately, no shittin hayzus scientific terminology (he owes me) ...but;

sad he still believes he scientificly proves his position with grammar school, yo momma wears combat boots, sticks and stones, language…guess he learned this at master’s level…

i see the futility of discussions with mulish, soft, wannabe hard, scientist, on a crusade to rid the universe of FC…vice, job one, cleaning up their own promotional science (see ms dawson’s blog)...

whats the toad-etals motivation… only logical one seems to be: venal pecuniary motives” (todd’s scientific for greed)...also

realize no matter how many times it’s regurgitated, mulish wannabes will NOT get that: their soft science is NOT hard science (hardly science). not only does it fail to invalidate FC; it does not validate most BS programs to cure/improve autism.

irony of irony: they even deny the existence of observable science, the foundation of good science…ie, a scientist begins an investigation by observing an object or an activity…they formulate a hypothesis that explains the behavior of the phenomena observed.

it has been observed many on the spectrum have an innate ability to learn without a formal education…vice formulating a hypothesis…cspe/toal-etals waste energy on an anti-FC crusade…

[cspe say] “As for the ‘seeing is believing’ science…that is not science”...

cspe would do well not to play…as he confirms all the negative aspects of a wannabe hard scientist (AKA a softie true believer)...he does does much to prove ms dawson’s (and others) promotional science opine.

it’s really not about FC…its about soft v hard science… about soft science, true believers (cspe, toad-etals) v real science…and the harm softies do…except to their pocket books.

“Like I said”...keep digging

stanley seigler

“go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly”

No. You are the people making the claim, so the burden of proof is yours. YOU get the science done. Fact is – you don’t want it done.

Pity the rest of your comment was either –
a) regurgitated rubbish that you’ve already used before (in many cases, word-for-word!)

or

b) indecypherable rubbish that I just can’t be bothered to go though.

I’ve made my point very well, and you can’t make yours so you rely on regurgitation and indecypherability to make yourself look as if you know what you’re talking about.

Everybody here knows you talk rubbish. And so do you. You’re just so sick that you can’t not let yourself look like you’re wrong.

You’re a sad man, Seigler. At least Arthur Golden would like to see some real science done on this issue. And at least now he knows the people to contact at his local university. What he does with that information is, of course, up to him.

I’ve come up with good scientific objections, based on empirical research (something you will never be able to understand), and all you’ve done is come back with what amounts to the worst sort of religious diatribe. You haven’t said anything new since … well … your second comment, really… and that is very sad.

Crawl back under your rock, Seigler. You haven’t evolved enough to play with us yet.

[cspe say] As for the ‘seeing is believing’ science… that is not science: it is easy to get so bound up in some observation that, in one’s own mind, one expects an outcome, and sure enough, one gets it. Proper science protects against this thing (it has a name: experimenter/observation/ bias).

“that (seeing) is not science” ... so all those who have seen: “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”...are delusional…it all in one’s mind…those (toad-etals) who deny FC also deny observable science…none so blind…keep digging.

real scientists and many ABAers accept ms dawson’s view of ABA and FC as promotional science…ie, it is NOT science

compassionate ABAers accept FC as a form of ACC…DDS, CA USA (the dept of developmental services) accepts FC when the choice of an IDT (interdisciplinary team)...whittier school district accepts FC as an ACC…

even todd acknowledges “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”... (see previous todd post to this blog)...Of course he then dismissed amazing feats and abounding testimonials as tricks of FCers…he say: anyone can make claims and lots of people, universities have been fooled…

all the people except cspe and the toad-etals…who make their living: “applying all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)” [PhD physicist say]

the basic premise: behavioral science (BS, how appropriate) is a science; is seriously flawed. BS is not a science…it is an art.

those who treat BS as an art are artists and do much good in the world…those (eg, cspe) who treat it as a hard science generally, do more harm than good…those who treat it as soft science fall in the middle…amount of good v evil depends on their “venal pecuniary motives” (todd’s scientific for greed)

the anti FC crusade…crusade to save the lucrative aba market…is losing momentum…cspe should get his money making book (the silent fortress) out asap…if it’s loaded with his LBRB crap …it’s already in the ditch with BB’s “empty fortress”...

[cspe say] go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly!

[ms dawson say] For those promoting ABA-based autism interventions, claims of effectiveness unfounded [...] any experimental design carrying the risk of being informative about the benefits and harms of ABA-based interventions has, for a long time now, been considered unethical.
http://autismcrisis.blogspot.c.....chive.html

people who live in glass houses, etc, etc,...

go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly!

stanley seigler

Art

Because if we’re not, you’re expecting too much from us. We each have our various duties and responsibilities. We don’t exist to be unpaid consultants: Professor Todd has his responsibilities at the Eastern University of Michigan (where he works), and I have mine in trying to write a book on the topic of FC and investigative methods (in a country where the recession still bites and the government still sends over €1,500M out of the country just to make Finland look good, and where we consequently haven’t got enough money in the system to make the system work!)... I also have to try and find a way of earning a living! You want my expertise, you have to pay for it… I’m not a charity. Neither is Professor Todd. I suspect that Dwight F. and Jason S. aren’t either.

The amount of work required to investigate FC properly – both qualitatively and quantitatively – is huge. it is a very labour-intensive task, not least because it is likely to require much work in the planning stages to develop a protocol that not only looks at general ‘laws’ (the quantitative measures) but also at the individual aspects of what is happening, how it is happening, and why it is happening (the qualitative measures).

This would be a seriously huge undertaking if it were to be done properly… and that means that, even with 30 to 50 participants (the minimum needed to get reasonable statistics to analyse meaningfully), it would take a long time to conduct.

That sort of thing isn’t going to come for free.

If you really are interested in having it done, you should apply (with your nearest university departments of psychology and education) for a grant. The Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus campus houses the Faculty of Social Sciences, which is where the psychology department is found. The School of Education seems to be extra-faculty, but it does have links with the psychology department in one of its research activities: educational and clinical child psychology. Professor Asher Cohen is your main contact in the Department of Psychology and, in the School of Education, you need to be talking to Professor Philip Wexler. I know nothing about grant-awarding bodies in Israel but I am sure that these two professors will.

“I am willing to … try to work with any Behaviorist who is willing to put in the hard work to do good scientific research, whether it is Professor James Todd, Jason S. or David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. or others.”

Professor James Todd already replied positively to me on April 11, 2010 (as documented in autismfc message #2018) and I look forward to a positive reply very soon from David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. and others.

Meanwhile, I intend to post any further substantive messages on the subject of “facilitated communication and autistics – good scientitifc research” only on on my autismfc yahoo!group.

Arthur Golden

p.s. posted without moderation. Thank you very much.

Get help.

That’s almost all I have to say to you now. You can’t come up with anything to counter properly what I say about the science because there is nothing. I’ve told you and the world where I stand on the FC issue. I’ve told you it’s not my rules but you can’t seem to comprehend that. I really am wondering what is wrong with you that you can’t get this into your head: I didn’t make up the rules of science so – if you’re wanting to blame someone – you’re blaming the wrong guy here. So your attacking me personally because of the way science is done is absolutely not acceptable, and nor is it with regard to Jason S., Dwight F., or James Todd. And that is something you came onto this board already doing… long before I got involved here.

As for clueless, think again: like I say, I’m involved in the writing of a book about FC and how to assess its viability and its authenticity. You couldn’t do that… you know far less that you think. I have been following the development of FC for years, and noted its several failings under scientific scrutiny. I am also aware that people like Richard exist, and – whilst I have no evidence at hand to support his claims – his story at least is consistent with something assisting his development of skills that he can use in communication. Without wanting to rubbish his comments here, or to insult him, I would accept what he says under certain conditions (ones that are dependent on a scientific scrutiny of his situation)... and I would go as far as saying that he’s the very kind of person who would provide a reason to rigorously investigate this FC thing.

““well english”...ohmy sigh, you are a cute hole digger…your actions speak louder than words…and the results are the same: YOU DENY because some young parents (as i thought BB did) think you (with your med, cspe whatever that is) know what you are talking about.

criminal you don’t understand the immoral consequences of your foul mouth science…”

Now I know you’re talking insane jibberish… not a single thing in what you said bears any relevance to what I said. I present a cogent argument for my position and all you can do is resort to insult… which is what you’ve been doing all the time you’ve been in this board. Take this as an example:

“todd-etals do a criminal disservice, injustice, to non verbals (and others) on the spectrum…they deny ‘seeing is believing’ science…they deny our children and friends their human/civil rights…they condemn children to Bettelheim’s Empty Fortress…

why deny anecdotal evidence that has been around since at least the mid 60s…when the potential is freedom for so many…to protect their livelihood maybe…”

The bit I emboldened was totally uncalled for. You started the name calling. As for the ‘seeing is believing’ science… that is not science: it is easy to get so bound up in some observation that, in one’s own mind, one expects an outcome, and sure enough, one gets it. Proper science protects against this thing (it has a name: experimenter/observation/ bias).

Incidentally… FW2, someone with whom I have some serious disagreement almost all of the time, is rather sceptical about FC (at least, when it comes to these sudden leaps of output under facilitation!) ... I gather she is an engineer, so she has quite a lot of understanding of science, and would know when to get suspicious of a method being touted the way that FC is.

We (JT, DF JS and I) have presented issues related to science for you. We have answered questions relating to the science. All you have done is name-calling (pseudos-cientists).. yet you don’t like it when you get called something not nice. Hypocrite.

You never have anything new to say. Why not shut up, and give us all a break from this endless stuck-record-thing you have going? Of course… you’re not capable of that, are you? I’d bet good odds you can’t keep from retaliating in such a vacuous manner again.