I’ve set up a new resource.
Its a forum which I intend to use solely for the discussion of the science that supports/refutes various things under discussion that are alledged about autism.
Everyone is encouraged to participate, regardless of where one stands on the issue and all science is allowed to be discussed – whether its peer reviewed or not, I would imagine though that science that is not peer reviewed should be questioned by those who disagree with its conclusions.
Forum rules:
The forum rules are very simple. These forums will only be used to discuss the science that is used to support/refute certain allegations about autism. No discussion on any other topic will be entered into. As this will be a science based environment, the atmosphere should remain polite, with no profanity, abuse, short-temperedness, sarcasm etc. Polite disagreement is encouraged but you must be prepared to back up any quotes you provide with a scientific source. Journalists don’t fall under this category.
I’m doing this for a number of reasons.
Firstly, blogging software isn’t really up to the the task of ongoing discussions. Forum software is perfectly suited to that task. Secondly, it seemed to me that whatever subject I start to talk about lately always falls back to a discussion on the state of the science underpinning autism – providing this forum will hopefully mean a lessening of the inevitable dilution of the subject.
The forum is easy to use – create a username and password and then go and post or read.
Now, the thorny issue of my own beliefs come up and how impartial I can hope to be in allowing some things to be discussed. I hope I’ve shown that I don’t edit or delete anything unless its plain old abuse, illegal or if I’ve asked people not to. However, if the forum takes off then I _may_ need a few moderators to help with crowd control etc. In the interests of impartiality I’ll try and get mods from both the neurodiversity *and* biomedical belief systems. Thats for the future though.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Thanks, Kev, for thinking of this and setting up such a nice forum. I know that I would be actually somewhat relieved to comment/participate on the scientific things I am interested in regarding ASD — and, thereby, not feel inclined to have to participate in discussions that I have no compelling interest in, but have felt a need to in order to even broach the scientific issues in my area of interest and/or to simply try to get my point across that there are actually other scientific aspects of ASD that do not seem to get discussed enough in the blogosphere due to … oh, well, never-mind — just sending you a big thanks for doing this! — Take care, HJ
So will this be a place where entire study texts could be posted? I think that might be a good idea so common reference could be had in any debates… to prevent misquoting, etc.
My only concern with your little experiment is that the people best qualified to have these kinds of discussions have no time to hang out in forums. Becaus they’re out there advocating for a cause…not clicking away on a computer.
Very nice. I like the citation restriction.
Erik: My only concern with your little experiment is that the people best qualified to have these kinds of discussions have no time to hang out in forums. Becaus they’re out there advocating for a cause…not clicking away on a computer.
No the people best qualified to have these kinds of discussions are busy doing science. Some are able to do both. What does it even mean to advocate for a cause?
The scientists I trust are busy trying to discover cause(s) whatever they may be…..not spinning away in front of a video camera.
_”So will this be a place where entire study texts could be posted? I think that might be a good idea so common reference could be had in any debates… to prevent misquoting, etc.”_
I agree in principle Erik but I think copyright issues would prevent that unless the study in question is available as free text.
Good idea, Kev. And frankly, I would be hard-pressed to think of anyone on either side of the ongoing debates who would be better suited as a moderator than you. One does not need to be impartial to be fair, and you have certainly shown yourself to be fair.
Wade, I agree with you about Kev’s position on things… as one suited to being the moderator and having in him that quality of fairness. Kev is indeed fair.
Very cool. Admittedly, geek that I am, the first thing I did was scroll down to see what php-based BB software you were using. .
Joking aside, this is incredibly relevant. I get a little tired of getting the facts second and third hand. Some links to some real studies will be invaluable.
Shawn
_”Very cool. Admittedly, geek that I am, the first thing I did was scroll down to see what php-based BB software you were using.”_
A man after my own heart ;o)
I use it as it serves up Strict XHTML and a bare minimum of layout tables!
Very cool. Admittedly, geek that I am, the first thing I did was scroll down to see what php-based BB software you were using.
Heh. Me, too. 😉
Shawn & Kev: ““Very cool. Admittedly, geek that I am, the first thing I did was scroll down to see what php-based BB software you were using.â€
A man after my own heart ;o)
I use it as it serves up Strict XHTML and a bare minimum of layout tables!”
Fuck, you two are beyond any redemption 😉
Shall I pray for you? 😉
Yes, David, please begin a prayer — preferably an Anglo-Catholic one if you could … thanks ever so. ; ]
P.S. I do have to admit I rather much like the Plain Vanilla that Shawn uses on his blog — and, yes, the content is quite good too.
_”Fuck, you two are beyond any redemption ;)”_
Both my job and my hobby so – yep, but prayer won’t help ;o)
LoL…. I was a catholic myself, but I paid the fine and got out; was gonnae be a priest!
Can anyone imagine me as a priest?
Apparently, neither could God!
Kev: “Both my job and my hobby so – yep, but prayer won’t help ;o)”
OMG! You know what that makes it…. Jobby!
😉
(With no apologies for the Billy Connolly reference there)