An article in yesterdays Longmont Times raised (for me anyway) the issue of Facilitated Communication.
This is an issue that is, in its own way, just as divisive as the vaccine issue amongst sections of the autism community and science. You see, some autistic and autism advocates believe passionately in the efficacy of FC whilst science largely rejects FC:
Current position statements of certain professional and/or advocacy organizations do not support the use of Facilitated Communication due to their objections that it lacks scientific validity or reliability. These organizations include the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Association on Mental Retardation. ABAI calls FC a “discredited technique” and warns that “its use is unwarranted and unethical.”
The Association for Science in Autism Treatment reviewed the research and position statements and concluded that the messages typed on the communication device were controlled by the facilitator, not the individual with autism, and FC did not improve their language skills. Therefore, FC was reported to be an “inappropriate intervention” for individuals with autism spectrum disorders
The section of the autism community that accepts FC as a valid technique is largely the neurodiversity movement in who’s ranks I place myself. But is this making me a hypocrite? I place such firm emphasis on science when it comes to vaccines I can do no less in other areas. But on the other hand voices I trust implicitly within the neurodiversity movement speak out in favour of FC. Amanda Baggs, Kathleen Seidel and (I think) Michelle Dawson to name but three. * [correction: Michelle is not an FC supporter] *
So what do I do? Should I be making a call for more studies (sounds familiar!) or dismissing the voices of autistic people I trust on the issue or dismissing established science?
Or is there another option? What are your thoughts on FC? A decent debate would be useful for lots of people I think.
Left Brain Right Brain 
To: Jason S.
From: Arthur Golden of Jerusalem Israel (1996 to date; Boston, Massachusetts USA 1968-96)
First, I wouild prefer to know who I am writing to and I request you provide adequate identifying information, as did Stanley Seigler. and Tom Smith, both from California for many decades (besides me, Arthur Golden). The three of us involved in the use of FC have nothing to hide. I should note Professor James Todd provided adequate identifying information.
You write “Research in academia has trickled because people don’t take it seriously anymore.” I agree about the sorry state of research in English-speaking countries, but at least for supportive FC research in several countries in Europe, besides Argentina and Japan, it seems many scientists do take it seriously and us English-speakers should not ignore over 90% of the rest of the world.
Would you please reply on point to my accurate factual statements about foreign language research supportive of FC (even mentioned by Mostert 2010 but then arbitrarily excluded) and please do not bring up the irrelevant nonsense (also brought up by Ms. Kim Wombles on her blog) that you “think you’ll find papers related to the mercury poisoning hypothesis of autism are going to vanish too.”
Arthur Golden,
You may request identifying information if you wish. Jason S. is under no obligation to provide that information.
I don’t feel the need to fully identify myself in an anonymous format. If you do not wish to interact without it, that’s your prerogative.
My comments on mercury poisoning weren’t irrelevant. I responded to you pointing out the recent dearth of research to look at. I replied that this is a consequence of FC not being taken seriously enough to be worth the time and effort. The mercury poisoning hypothesis is a great analogy because there recently was a flurry of research on it that is widely perceived to be conclusive, so one can anticipate a similar trickle effect. The analogy is even stronger because the initial idea had implausible theoretical foundations to begin with and never had sufficient evidence in its favor to warrant anything but a skeptical attitude.
It’s difficult for me to comment on foreign papers that are published in untranslated journals. For one, I don’t know what the methods of the studies are, nor do I know the journal standards. I do know we just you positively cite uncontrolled anecdotal reports in FC’s favor as if they were on par with studies that attempt to control for internal validity – either because you didn’t read Mostert’s 2001 paper closely enough or do not care. So that isn’t encouraging. FC advocates tend to argue that descriptive, non-experimental research methods yield qualitative evidence FC, but those efforts invariably do not properly control for authorship by FC users rather than facilitators in the analysis. Deeply problematic validation procedures like looking for word-use patterns or combing for information thought to be unknown by the facilitator are opted for. Citing those efforts alongside properly controlled studies is highly questionable since the question at hand is causal attribution of the communication. I suppose that’s at least better than trying to leverage Schawlow’s Nobel.
One of the downsides to the reduction in research is that the embers of FC has continued to burn since the mid 90’s. Just because scientists, as a whole, aren’t taking the matter seriously that does not mean we can say the same of families, caretakers, and occasionally courts. Sometimes there’s use in continuing research to address those practical realities.
I am familiar with Mostert’s 2010 paper, but I have not read it. It’s published in a relatively obscure journal that my university stopped getting access to in 2008. What three studies does it cite? I more likely than not have access to those assuming they were published in respectable journals.
Behaviorism is a multi billion dollar industry and Jason is here defending it. You bet he should identify himself. FC on the other hand has been banned in most places thanks to the behaviorists who run most programs.
This huge and powerful behavioral industry in autism was built on the claim that it is more scientific than other autism interventions and that autistics are as dumb as a doorknob. Early intervention, ie ABA, added billions to their coffers based on one obvious pseudoscientific study…the Lovass 1987 study. I saw the pitch to parents to support orgs like FEAT that promoted ABA using the Lovass study. Some pros were there and raised questions and were immediately silenced. This sort of thing happened all over the country. ABA was sold to the parents as a cure for autism. What charlatanism.
Other than the autism field in disabilities, the rest of the mental health communities ejected the behaviorists in the 1980’s. The only other major foothold of the behaviorists is with the government in developing effective torture and interrogation techniques.
Now to the issue of people speaking for autistics. People are ALWAYS guessing about what they need, what is wrong with them and what is best for them. This is talking for autistics and it occurs many times an hour. FC on the other hand knows it’s limitations and is careful in functional areas, especially compared to hourly judgments that are made for autistics with impunity by what is essentially guesses. FC is best for casual get-to-know-you interactions. Harmless stuff but critical in reproducing the best of communication in treatment terms.
Yes, the treatment value of FC should be studied but it’s a no brainer for anyone who has done extensive treatment that FC would be VERY beneficial. My personal experience in using FC in a highly scientific ICF program and based on the data from that program is that it worked miracles. All our clients, who were adults and been on meds for most of their lives, were taken off meds and disruptive behavior became non existent. Not bad for sitting there and holding an autistics hand and communicating. What we usually did was teach the same old skills using the same old methods for decade after decade. What did that do? It aggravated the hell out of the auties and we spent most of our time “containing” them.
One last thing…about auties being best on autie treatment. I haven’t seen that. For one thing people on the high functioning part of the spectrum aren’t really much different in most ways than NT’s except they are stronger in both creative and linear ways. The linear ones will be extreme skeptics while the creative ones will tend to be more open and flexible. So it comes out the same in the wash. Severe auties have a totally different existence and all NT’s and high functioning auties have much to learn about that existence.
Tom Smith,
I did not write this piece. However, I write many pieces for this blog. I do so under a pseudonym. There are many reasons why people use pseudonyms on the internet, including privacy.
Thank G-d, after an intensive week of trying to keep a roof over our heads, about 12 hours ago I signed a new lease through August 31, 2011 and received the keys to an apartment.
Although I personally find it hard to read anything laced with four letter words, I believe the comments from Jason S. may serve a useful purpose. I would prefer to know who is Jason S. but I understand the right to use a pseudonym (although this right can be abused) and I intend to reply to the comments of Jason S. (who reactivated this blog entry on FC 3-1/2 days ago). Meanwhile, my replies will involve my recent discussions with Professor James Todd over the past month and therefore I am posting here the email I just sent him:
Jim,
E.8. As I wrote to you over 2 weeks ago (E.7.d.):
“I look forward to receiving another email from you soon, showing that you are proceeding to arrange these tests, as you publicly offered to me by my name to do on the blog of Ms. Liz Ditz over two weeks ago (E.1.b.) [now over a month ago].”
[blog of Liz Ditz can be accessed at:
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/04/combating-pseudoscience-in-autism-treatment-facilitated-communication-.html ]
E.9. This week I mentioned your name in comments to a blog entry at LBRB (as did Stanley Seigler), including as follows:
…Jason S. previously wrote:
“Dr. James Todd already referenced to the the most important meta-analysis studies. I don’t think there is online public access to Gina Green’s paper, but you can look up Mostert’s easily enough:
http://kslinker.com/facilitated-communicaton-since-1995.pdf ”
…”By the way, as I will try to discuss when I have the time (after I sign a lease so my family continues to have a roof over our heads, including my 38 year-old son Ben – nonverbal autistic who chooses to use FC – not just through FC but through his self-initiated completely independent primary means of communication – GESTURING), I have accepted the challenge from Professor James Todd to again scienitifically test my son’s FC – when I plan
to challenge the validity of the so-called scientific tests that Jason S. and all other skeptics rely on for claiming that FC has been invalidated. Good science takes time, so please be patient for the results of this planned case study by Professor James Todd.”
E.10. I signed the lease about 12 hours ago, so I plan to discuss these proposed scientific tests on the LBRB blog soon. If you believe that there is anything in your 2 recent emails to me that should be kept confidential, please let me know at your earliest convenience. I believe that there is nothing of a confidential nature in your 2 emails and there are compelling reasons to make the information contained in them available to the public. If I do not receive an email from you within 96 hours from now, I will assume you agree with me that the information can be made public.
Sincerely,
Art
Tom Smith say re:
re : Behaviorism is a multi billion dollar industry and Jason is here defending it…etc, etc, etc…
didn’t want to get into any discussions with tom (in which most seemed to end) re feminist conspiracy theories…so
asked tom not to refer to me in any of his posts…apologies to tom and thanks for his spot-on defense of those who, thanks to FC, have been freed from BB’s empty fortress…
sad feminist conspiracy theories (tom/anyone pls dont bring it up here) did much to destroy toms credibility among some in the autism community…but
give the devil his due: tom, as said, is spot-on re FC, autism, and Behaviorism (ABA)….OF COURSE;
this only the opine of one who is crap at science (per andrews)…
i’ll take my crap science (does no harm) over the science (does much harm) practiced by those who discredit FC to enhance their livelihood and lead the suck up aba sheep to support them…ie;
sustain a billion (whatever) dollar industry…run by those (quoting a friend) who “apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)”…for quote context see stanley seigler post to this subj, dtd 10/9/09.
stanley seigler
comment #210
Before getting into my discussion with Professor James Todd over the past month, I have decided to post here a comment I posted nearly 2 years ago to the blog of Dr. Steven Novella:
NeuroLogica Blog » Deconstructing the Cranks on 01 Jul 2008 at 8:10 am
[…] recently received this comment in response to my blog on facilitated communication. Gigi Jordon (writing as “Holly […]
Comment from arthurgolden on 03 Jul 2008 at 7:13 am
1. Dr. Steven Novella writes:
“FC [Facilitated Communication] makes a specific claim – that the non-verbal client has hidden language ability that can be tapped into with help. I have nothing a priori against this claim – I just recognize that it is important to find out if it is really true, in general and in specific cases. This is especially important if allegations of sexual abuse are going to be based upon this assumption.
The claim of FC, (again – in general and in specific cases) can easily be tested – simply give specific information to the client while the facilitator is out of the room, then allow the facilitator to use FC in whatever way they feel comfortable to convey that information back. No walls are necessary, no artificial controlled environment. The only thing that needs to be controlled is the access of the facilitator to the information you are testing for. When tested in this simple way, FC completely fails. A rational response to this utter failure is to question the assumptions underlying FC. An irrational, ideological, arrogant response is to rant about “cold and adversarial testing.””
2. The above statement from Dr. Novella is very logical, but does that make it really true? At least with severe autism, is Dr. Novella correct when he states that “The claim of FC … can easily be tested?” Or, as I wrote over three months ago, but did not attempt to explain then, is the proposed test of FC instead really a test of autism? I wish I had a peer-reviewed scientific study to support my explanation, but I will attempt to give the information I have and leave it to qualified scientists to do the scientific study if they are willing to do so.
3. As I did disclose before, my now 36 year-old son Ben, who is non-verbal with severe autism, did have a reliable physically independent point response sometime before he was 11 years old. If given one row of several objects or pictures and asked to point to a named object or picture, he could reliably physically independently point with his index finger. However, I believe that if Ben was shown an object or picture by Person A in one room and then was asked by Person B (who did not know what was shown to Ben) in another room to point to the object or picture which was included in one row of several objects, I believe (but I do not have actual scientific data) that he could not do so. But such a conclusion is consistent with my actual experience with my son. Of course, if my son Ben could not do so with his reliable physically independent point response, neither could he do so when asked to spell out the name of the object he was shown in one room by Dr. Howard Shane on May 3, 1994 (at age 22) when I was the facilitator and did not know the object he was shown. So, can the claim of FC be so easily tested, or did Dr. Shane, definitely an expert in the language skills of persons with autism, design a test that any person with severe autism would fail, as did Augustus at an earlier time when Dr. Shane used this same test because of allegations of sexual abuse?
4. Before this comment gets too long, if any qualified scientist wishes to pursue this matter, I will be glad to dsiclose more information.
Arthur Golden of Jerusalem Israel
Stan, what a back handed compliment. It’s you who are obsessed with your role in feminism as well you should be. It is a political issue of great importance not only to the society as a whole but in autism as well. The mistakes made with FC can be traced directly to that ugly and cruel ideology of feminism. Even the skeptics are so in large part because they oppose the political dynamics of FC’s promoters…as well they should.
That said, we both know the value of FC and we should be here extolling it and not taking pot shots at eachother. I will continue to say the truth irregardless of folks like you.
I don’t particularly appreciate efforts to uncover my identity so that my position can be dismissed as a matter of crude financial motives. For people who bristle at the comparison to anti-vaxers, this sure seems an awful lot like their habit of attributing skepticism of their unfounded views as a matter of pharmaceutical greed. If it’s any comfort, I stand to profit in no way from facilitated communication being a dead intervention. Moreover, suggesting that someone must be a strong supporter of ABA if they think FC has been largely disconfirmed is a clear false dichotomy.
If FC is an example of misattribution of communication to the facitliated subject, then FC presents a major source of harm being done to them. That aside, how odd of someone to assert there is no harm when FC is famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations. Talk about a bright-line example of harm.
To the actual issue, I’d to look at the recent citations. For all I know, they could be anecdotal case studies in pay to publish journals. I have no clue what is being referred to. I do know that my interactions led to someone positively citing studies that made no meaningful effort to control for internal validity as confirmation of internal validity.
I also do not approve of attempts to “out” commenters on this blog.
David N. Andrews say re:
Re: Questions:
1- what ‘respected PhD psychologist?
2- why would a PhD in psychology make someone automatically relevant as a commentator here? (essential professional skills in psychology are learned at the Master’s degree stage; doctoral stage work is geared towards advanced professional and research skills)
3- why should the ‘todd-et-als’ consider that PhD psychologist’s approach?
If you are asking for a name…comments made in private email exchange…I will have to ask permission…the respected psychologist was also director of developmental disabilities service for a US state…and teaches autism issues to MDs (interns) at a prestigious US hospital.
essential professional skills learned at masters level…believe a masters is awarded prior to phd.
very few PhDs or masters have learned essential skills to improve the quality of life for those on the spectrum…they are too involved in publish or perish activities and becoming professors…eg, papers/tests to discredit FC in order to protect their livelihood and to prevent their lives from being invalidated (“awakenings” unthinkable syndrome)…
to repeat a PhD physicist’s (father of twin autistic boys who use FC) opined: Physical scientists are not welcome in the world of the would-be scientists in psychology, psychiatry and medicine…Worst of all are behavioral psychologists …who apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)… The biosciences in the past four decades have accounted for 99% of the fraudulent research reports. Underpaid chemists, physicists and biologists working in labs run by senior professors, often MD’s but not always, fudged or outright created data sets to publish results and totally unjustified conclusions…Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…“but don’t expect the pseudoscientists to pay any attention, since many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior. (for context see stanley seigler post to this blog subject dtd 10/9/09)
why should the ‘todd-et-als’ consider that PhD psychologist’s approach…maybe: because its gives the indivual choice…because its consistence with ASHS guidelines in determining effective programs for our special needs children/friends…because its consistence with CA-USA requirement that needs be determined by an interdisciplinary team…
re: you’re crap at science…
thanks for the compliment…practical, results, oriented people make good things happen…science is for the publish or perish academia…who tho needed and have contributed much…sometimes do much harm…eg, science that proved nicotine was not addictive…science that gave us lobotomies…that denies choice of FC to the spectrum…
as asked (not answered) in another post: what are the positive outcomes of toad-etals scientific FC position…positive outcomes for many FC users are reduced behavior issues, improved general well being…freedom from BBs empty fortress.
A foolish crap scientist,
stanley seigler
to blog owner
pls delete my (stanley seigler; 5 may 21:41:26) post…my crap, foolish, computer science and petulant 3rd grade mentality are the blame for the duplicate post…apologies to the blog…
stanley seigler
“believe a masters is awarded prior to phd.”
And that is relevant because…?
FYI, where I trained, the M. Ed. I took was a terminal degree in my specialty, and I completed mine by original practitioner research. Additional to this, I took a specialism certification by original research.
“If you are asking for a name…comments made in private email exchange…I will have to ask permission.”
If the person who made them were serious about that remark, well… that person would stand by it. I’m betting that this person daren’t admit to saying that.
“very few PhDs or masters have learned essential skills to improve the quality of life for those on the spectrum…they are too involved in publish or perish activities and becoming professors…eg, papers/tests to discredit FC in order to protect their livelihood and to prevent their lives from being invalidated…”
OMFG! Talk about anti-academia paranoia! FYI, I actually learned a shit.load of autism-specialist professional skills on my training course. As did my ex-eife, and a shit-load of other people who took the course: this definitely invalidates your pathetic and woefully unsupported paranoid claim. Way to look stupid, man!
“Physical scientists are not welcome in the world of the would-be scientists in psychology,”
Um… to stupid a remark to be even wrong. Basically an induction proof (at its braodest definition!)… so if i can find a single case, then your ‘induction proof’ is basically fucked. Ready for this, eh?
Daryl Bem: BS (physics), MA,PhD (social psychology)
Patrick Meredith BSc (physics), MSc (physics – specialist area), MEd (educational psychology)
Raymond Cattell BSc (chemistry), PhD (psychological statistics and psychometrics)
George Kelly BA (mathematics & physics), MS (educational sociology), BEd (educational psychology), PhD (clinical psychology)
David N. Andrews BA-equvalence (applicable psychology, with mathematical sciences & archaeology; Finnish as ab initio language), MEd (applied psychology of special education), CPSE (educational & organisational ethno-psychology/psycho-anthropology)… launched into psychology from an internship in medical physics
Alfred Binet French undergraduate studies in law and natural sciences (includes physical sciences), no formal psychological training!
Jean Piaget undergraduate studies in natural sciences, including physics…
Louis Leon Thurlstone MS (mechanical engineering), PhD (psychology)
Kurt Lewin PhD psychologist from Prussia, who incorporated many physical-scientific concepts into psychology, such as force field analysis, topological fields and the importance of space-time issues in shaping behaviour
Wolfgang Köhler PhD (physics & psychology)
Sigmund Freud MD (medicine, neurologist initially) – used many physical science concepts in delineating his theory of psychoanalysis (notions suchs as the dynamics of systems, for example)
Godfrey H. Thomson BSc (mathematics & physics), PhD (psychology) – used many principles from mathematical physics in developing his model of educational psychology (was Kelly’s supervisor at the University of Edinburgh)
So, that’s twelve counters to your very specious claim, and I only needed one to invalidate it. And all of us used ideas – especially when it comes/came to measurement – from the physical sciences that we studied as undergraduates.The physical sciences and scientists are indeed welcome in psychological science, contrary to your very errant belief.
Pretty clear here is that you have a problem with being demonstrated to be wrong. I have a feeling you don’t actually research the bollocks that you spew on blogs like this one.
“Worst of all are behavioral psychologists …who apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)”
Think again. You haven’t even started to back up that claim. True, Lovaas’ work was basically flawed – the flaws went through it like lettering though Blackpool rock. But not all behaviourists are Lovaas (indeed – he was a psychoanalyst who understood very little of behaviourist theory… had he understood it he would have been aware that the ‘aversives’ used in his famous ‘49%’ study were contrary to the proposals put forward by both men who developed behaviourist theory in psychology: B F Skinner and J B Watson (both of whom eschewed punishment strongly). Much in behaviour modification is done in collaboration with the people whose behaviour is being modified, especially in its organisational context of O-BMod).
“Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…”
Shitting Jesus – Stanley – where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants. Every psychologist who has trained properly knows that the size of your sample affects the sort of error margin you get in your results and that this error margin is reduced by having a larger sample. Pilot projects may use as few as 50 participants in order to obtain preliminary results, and this is a reasonable number. Statistical analysis can be conducted on data from fewer participants but we know that the results will not be very reliable, for generalisation. They may give basis for valid inferences within the specific type of context in which they were obtained.
“since many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human being”
Actually – I agree – some don’t. But most do, especially those trained under the Boulder Model of training in psychology (scientist-practitioner). Observation of behaviour is taught as a matter of course in any behavioural science… and it is taught very thoroughly.
“who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior”
(my italics)
Are you kidding? I mean – seriously – are you kidding? People do follow some basic laws determines statistically in behavioural science. One such law is Thorndyke’s Law of Effect (without which law, by the way, all teaching would be fucking useless!).
“what are the positive outcomes of toad-etals scientific FC position”
Better reliability and validity coefficients for the results and inferences that could be made on their basis. Better knowledge is likely regarding the situations and circumstances in which FC might actually be producing valid results… isn’t that something that FC proponents would actively want? If so, then why get all fucking anti-science? Answer: given what we already (having seen of many instances of people having communications incorrectly attributed to them, in various critical situations), it is very likely that Biklen is shit-scared that his huge business empire will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.
“A foolish crap scientist,
stanley seigler”
Yeh – you fucking said it, man.
You are not even a scientist. It is clear that you understand so little about what a scientific approach is and why it should be used in the evaluation of any sort of intervention, and it just fucks with my mind as to why you would want to demonstrate (in such an obvious way) how little you ‘get’ science. I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything. You – on the other hand – are prepared to talk absolute bollocks, without backing a single thing up. And the fucked up thing is this – you expect us scientifically literate people to say “Oh, well, if Stanley says it – it must be true!” Bugger off!!! Tell me you’re joking!
I’m going to let Professor Brian Cox have the last word… substitute your anti-scientific FC crap where he’s talking about the unscientific belief in the ‘End of the World’ thing and you’ll see what any reasonably scientifically literate person would think you are!
Thanks to Brian Cox, BSc, PhD – both in physics… Professor of Physics (University of Manchester)
Jason S say re:
re: I don’t particularly appreciate efforts to uncover my identity so that my position can be dismissed as a matter of crude financial motives.
you are too particular…your ID is a nit… as reasonably sure my daughter will not exposed to any of your programs…but am concerned with your (toad-etals) motives…you mislead those on the spectrum and young parents much as I was mislead by BB…
tho not religious…Father forgive them (toad-etal) for they know not what they do…comes to mind…what motivates you to bad mouth FC and deny the spectrum the right to express their feelings by whatever means they choose…
re: FC is famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations. Talk about a bright-line example of harm.
FC made famous for dubious rape accusation by the toad-etals…and rightly so…however false charges are a criminal justice issue not a FC validity issue…
there are a zillion false charges by NTs…eg, Mcmartin school in Pasadena CA…witch hunt in bakersfield CA…do you want to blame them on FC…FC a very small percentage of false charges…probably consistent with population ratios…
and/oh those accused of rape were found not guilty by a legal system that also found OJ not guilty…are you sure the charges were false…
why not just follow ASHS guideline and CA Lanterman Act and let an interdisciplinary team determine need and appropriate programs…why bad mouth FC…care to provide your motives, hidden agenda maybe…
stanley seigler
comment #218 (I think) – written before reading the last 2 comments were posted to the blog (and I do not have the time now to read them)
For a skeptic, Jason S. is rather gullible to believe the “blood libel” that “FC is famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations.” As I think about it, I realize that skeptics as a group have been rather gullbile on this whole issue of Facilitated Communication. It is my gut feeling, without any actual proof on my part, that influential people who had a financial interest in discrediting FC, such as behaviorist Gina Green, intentionally manipulated others in the early 1990s, by associating FC with known dubious practices such as “recovered memories” (false memory syndrome) which by the early 1990s was legitimately “famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations.”
I am not trying to “out” Jason S. but I believe he stated he is Finnish and I presume he lives in Finland. I do not know if he understands what I mean be a “blood libel” so I would like to state that I have a high opinion of the Finnish people for their excellent treatment of Jews during World War II even though Finland was allied with Nazi Germany because Finland was defending itself from being taken over by the Soviet Union. I assume that Jason S. is a well-meaning person who has been taken in by intentional manipulations and that Jason S. is completely sincere in his beliefs about FC, even though I am trying to participate in Good Science to show that his beliefs are false. As I will try to discuss in 3 days (realizing that LBRB has put me on moderation and that there may be a delay in the posting of my comments), I have accepted the public challenge from Professor James Todd and I am trying to work with him to arrange further testing of FC.
I wish to note that I have not yet specifically replied to several other comments of Jason S. and when I have the time, I do hope to do so. Even though I do not know who Jason S. is, his comments do reflect the generally-held beliefs of many people about FC and do deserve a carefully considered serious reply. At the moment I am preoccupied coming up with the money to actually move to a new apartment, so please understand my delay in preparing appropriate replies.
Arthur Golden
My comment #218 was posted immediately and was not subject to moderation (unlike my comment #210). Although I think I do not need to be on moderation – after LBRB read my latest comment, I do not know how they will view the matter!
Arthur Golden
Oops! Now I am back on moderation. Was the apparent posting of comment #218 a computer glitch or is someone awake at 5 a.m. in the UK?
Arthur Golden,
I don’t know why your last comment was caught in the moderation queue. I’ve released it.
Not being in the UK, it is easy for me to do so at this hour.
That said, I am not really participating in this discussion. I got left behind somewhere around comment 2.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E say re:
Re : whatever
seems you are more interested in letting us know how brilliant you are vice improving the quality of life for those on the spectrum…have difficulty following your scientific fuckin language…so you win the nits argument: I am a fool and you are a brilliant a-hole…
hope one day you realize this not about you and me and the harm you have done/do to those on the spectrum…sadly, evident by your post you never will…as one on the spectrum you should know better and live in shame…
oh/btw oh brilliant one…your scientific foul mouth does nothing to invalidated FC…actually discredits your position…but tend to cut you some slack as you are on the spectrum…
re: Shitting Jesus – Stanley – where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants
what is the sample size of the test you (toad-etals) refer to that invalidate FC…1500???…and/oh
what are the positive outcomes of your position…you are in a hole…keep digging and you will validate FC…
stanley seigler
ps. andrews say: And that is relevant because…? none, why did you bring it up…do you have a short term memory problem…
“seems you are more interested in letting us know how brilliant you are vice improving the quality of life for those on the spectrum…have difficulty following your scientific fuckin language…so you win the nits argument: I am a fool and you are a brilliant a-hole…”
Why would I waste eloquence on someone not intelligent enough to appreciate it?
“hope one day you realize this not about you and me and the harm you have done/do to those on the spectrum…sadly, evident by your post you never will…as one on the spectrum you should know better and live in shame…”
‘Scuse me? You’ve already validated FC without a single proper study, despite the fact that many proper studies have said it’s basically bollocks? Jesus Christ – look at yourself, man! In that one remark there, you’ve basically aligned yourself with Prof. Cox’s definition of a twat! OMFG!
“oh/btw oh brilliant one…your scientific foul mouth does nothing to invalidated FC…actually discredits your position…but tend to cut you some slack as you are on the spectrum…”
I didn’t think swearing would discredit FC… that’s not the purpose. It is to let you know how contemptable your stance on it (as a ‘twue-bewiever’) is!
“re: Shitting Jesus – Stanley – where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants”
“what is the sample size of the test you (toad-etals) refer to that invalidate FC…1500???…and/oh”
Irrelevant question -. we’re not norming an IQ test.
Just figured out your qualification: Stanley Seigel Dip. Shit.
“what are the positive outcomes of your position…you are in a hole…keep digging and you will validate FC…”
No we’re not. And if you’ve already got FC validated a priori, then maybe your scientific literacy is well below what it should be to be able to engage in a serious debate with. Now, Stanley, old chum… bugger off!
Stanley Seigler Dip. Shit.said:
“ps. andrews say: And that is relevant because…? none, why did you bring it up…do you have a short term memory problem…”
Yes. but nowhere near as bad as your intellectual one! Um – YOU brought up the thing to which i posed the question of relevance…. seems your memory’s fucked as well.
I think it is about time, that time was called on what is becoming a very silly pantomime argument. “oh no it is” “oh no it isn’t”
It’s even being conducted in a laughable pantomime language “Todd-etals” indeed, why not bring Thetans and Drakonians into the argument, it would make as much sense.
We have a true believer who believes by the seat of his pants (not science) and we have dyed in the wool skeptics, this show will run and run until sense prevails and everybody realises that nobody is convincing anybody.
BTW an award of a masters or even a bachelors degree is not always necessary for an award of a PhD, there are some exceptions out there, I am one of them, I came ready equipped with the research credentials by virtue of having carried out social research before in a real world context, not an academic one. But if I don’t stop wasting my time on Punch and Judy blogs, I will never get any work done.
I think it is about time, that time was called on what is becoming a very silly pantomime argument. “oh no it is” “oh no it isn’t”
It’s even being conducted in a laughable pantomime language “Todd-etals” indeed, why not bring Thetans and Drakonians into the argument, it would make as much sense.
We have a true believer who believes by the seat of his pants (not science) and we have dyed in the wool skeptics, this show will run and run until sense prevails and everybody realises that nobody is convincing anybody.
comment #225 (I think)
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. recently wrote:
“…I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything.”
Such a statement is an example of what I call a “very pious statement made in public” which I consciously try to avoid making.
Just a few lines earlier, David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. wrote the factual statement which is capable of being ascertained with verifiable information:
“…it is very likely that Biklen is shit-scared that his huge business empire will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.”
Although I only recently came out as an autistic on LBRB, as an autistic (but not Asperger’s, given my language delays as a young child) I have some strong obsessions which include internet research on anything connected with Facilitated Communication since I first had access to the internet in May 1997, 13 years ago. My internet research on FC includes Biklen, and my real world contact with Professor Douglas Biklen on FC goes back to September 1990 and on his other humanitarian activities (such as the Jawonio Preschool) to well before 1990. I have never ascertained any verifiable information about Biklen’s “huge business empire” of FC, where he might be “shit-scared” it “will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.” Indeed, my verifiable information has shown a distinct lack of financial success. But since David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. states “I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything” it seems I must have missed something despite my obsessive behavior. I look forward to receiving this verifiable information.
I have no obsession about researching the huge business empires of Behaviorists, but I am pretty certain that JRC in Massachusetts has over 200 clients at over $200,000 each per year, which comes out to over $40,000,000 (forty million dollars) annually. Someone in these comments stated the director of JRC has an annual salary of $400,000. Could it be that it is the Behaviorists that are “shit-scared” about Facilitated Communication and one could question if they used some unethical behavior to protect their huge business empires? I am willing to put aside such negative thoughts and 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. I prefer to be open about such scientific research and we can discuss it here in public on this blog. I am waiting 4 days to receive a reply to my latest email to Professor James Todd (see comment #208) but he made public statements up to a month ago that I may try to post here and comment on before then. Although I have compelling reasons to post here after waiting these 4 days the 2 emails that I have received from Professor James Todd in the past month and there is absolutely nothing confidential in his 2 emails, I commit to keeping strictly confidential any emails I receive from any other Behaviorists in reply to this offer. Emails can to sent to me at golden.arthur at gmail.com
Arthur Golden
If a false sex abuse allegation is a byproduct of unconscious prompting from a facilitator, then it is an FC issue. That is an obvious source of harm that belies the notion that even if FC isn’t real, its harmless. FC isn’t homeopathy and even that has an opportunity cost. FC did historically result in sex allegations and FC does have a strong case that it is unconscious physical prompting from facilitators in at least the vast majority of cases. The Oakland, MI case mentioned in this conversation thread is an example. Someone was jailed for months over it. Really though, it’s much more of a fundamental harm to replace someone’s thoughts with another’s.
Dr. Green’s paper “The Quality of Evidence” is probably the best paper to read on FC if you were only allowed to read one. Even if it were true that she was taking her position to defend the filthy lucre of her field, the paper still stands on its own merits. Her arguments don’t cease to be cogent no matter her motives. That is, unless you are accusing her of misrepresenting sources and results, intentionally no less. In addition to that being a serious accusation, it is false.
L Rex say re:
Re: a laughable pantomime language “Todd-etals” indeed, why not bring Thetans and Drakonians into the argument, it would make as much sense.
Enjoy the too cute humor…it deserves a segment on colbert/daily/maher…however not sure it contributes to freeing non verbals (they may not see it as laughable) on the spectrum from BB’s empty fortress…open to any discussion as to how it (too cute remarks) helps the nonverbals on the spectrum…
Re: believes by the seat of his pants (not science)
wrong anatomy end…try 20/20 vision…seeing is believing…a “doting grandfather” of a non verbal dear child would have more insight…more compassion…would not joke about child’s pain and suffering.
stanley seigler
comment #228 (I think)
The following comment was originally submitted over 18 hours ago but is being held in moderation. One reason apparently is that I quoted from the message of David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. that included an 11 letter compound word where the first four letters are a four letter word, which I have been told are banned on this blog, even though the message being quoted was allowed without moderation. So I have substituted s–t (putting in dashes instead of the 2nd and 3rd letters hi). Within the next 11 hours I hope to respond to a recent message from Jason S. about Gina Green. Then, I will be away from my computer and not trying to post messages here for about 36 hours.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. recently wrote:
“…I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything.”
Such a statement is an example of what I call a “very pious statement made in public” which I consciously try to avoid making.
Just a few lines earlier, David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. wrote the factual statement which is capable of being ascertained with verifiable information:
“…it is very likely that Biklen is s–t-scared that his huge business empire will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.”
Although I only recently came out as an autistic on LBRB, as an autistic (but not Asperger’s, given my language delays as a young child) I have some strong obsessions which include internet research on anything connected with Facilitated Communication since I first had access to the internet in May 1997, 13 years ago. My internet research on FC includes Biklen, and my real world contact with Professor Douglas Biklen on FC goes back to September 1990 and on his other humanitarian activities (such as the Jawonio Preschool) to well before 1990. I have never ascertained any verifiable information about Biklen’s “huge business empire” of FC, where he might be “s–t-scared” it “will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.” Indeed, my verifiable information has shown a distinct lack of financial success. But since David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. states “I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything” it seems I must have missed something despite my obsessive behavior. I look forward to receiving this verifiable information.
I have no obsession about researching the huge business empires of Behaviorists, but I am pretty certain that JRC in Massachusetts has over 200 clients at over $200,000 each per year, which comes out to over $40,000,000 (forty million dollars) annually. Someone in these comments stated the director of JRC has an annual salary of $400,000. Could it be that it is the Behaviorists that are “s–t-scared” about Facilitated Communication and one could question if they used some unethical behavior to protect their huge business empires? I am willing to put aside such negative thoughts and 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. I prefer to be open about such scientific research and we can discuss it here in public on this blog. I am waiting 4 days to receive a reply to my latest email to Professor James Todd (see comment #208) but he made public statements up to a month ago that I may try to post here and comment on before then. Although I have compelling reasons to post here after waiting these 4 days the 2 emails that I have received from Professor James Todd in the past month and there is absolutely nothing confidential in his 2 emails, I commit to keeping strictly confidential any emails I receive from any other Behaviorists in reply to this offer. Emails can to sent to me at golden.arthur at gmail.com
Arthur Golden
Jason S say re:
Re: Dr. Green’s paper “The Quality of Evidence” is probably the best paper to read on FC if you were only allowed to read one.
COMMENT
Is there a link to this paper…
In the meantime wondering, recalling some of ms dawsons opines, why aba promoters (scientists) should be taken seriously…she say:
“Promotion first, science later, if ever. This pattern is near universal when it comes to autism interventions. In the absence of good quality research, autism interventions are loudly claimed to be effective…For those promoting ABA-based autism interventions, claims of effectiveness unfounded in good quality research were only the first step. The real triumph has been widespread agreement that fair tests of ABA-based interventions are unethical and bad for autistics. As a result, 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.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=23
have not read much of ms dawson’s stuff… but what I have seems fact based and should be much to liking of those who worship the golden calf of science…and seems consistent with my foolish crap science and that of some more scientific friends…eg:
“Worst of all are behavioral psychologists …who apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings… Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects”
I have seen little scientific proof of the long term ABA positive outcomes…anecdotally…at 4 my daughter learned to button with lovaas student at UCLA…at 44 she cant button..
POINT:why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…
ANOTHER: to prevent going around this bush ad nauseam, accept ASHA guidelines. Let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs…ABAers, why the crusade to rid the world of FC if not for “venal pecuniary motives”…todd’s scientific for greed.
As in all walks there are the good, bad, and ugly…there are many good ABAers…those non crusaders who say:
“I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”
stanley seigler
Stan’s testimony on behaviorism in autism as a parent is the same as mine as a direct care worker. The difference is I had to be a behaviorist in order to work in the field. I had to separate the wheat from the chaffe in what we were doing behaviorally. I loved good data collection because at least then we had some ground to stand on to move on to other interventions, behavioral or otherwise. Even then there was great resistance to moving on because most of the non working interventions were skill training and that’s what parents wanted and they have a great deal of power these days in treatment decisions. The other good thing about behaviorism were the structured positive interventions. At least with behaviorism we had a way to manage staff to keep their interventions somewhat positive instead of saying “no” or “don’t do that” all of the time. Behaviorism gave us some logical ways to structure and hone programming.
About the sexual allegations vis a vis FC. They should have never happened, and the few times it was justified there needed to be a procedure in place before going to law enforcement. Reporting about abuse is now a very serious matter so many errored in favor of being overly careful. That’s one thing with verbal clients but with non verbals using a communication method like FC it’s insanity. Two months into FCing I told my supervisor that there was no way the method could be used for serious functional or accusatory statements. There was one sexual allegation in the two intensive years of my using FC, par for the course even with verbals, and we took care of it quietly and carefully. We set up a system to restrict use of FC for anything accusatory…even casual joking between staff with an autie using FC. In that way we avoided hurt feelings and gave skeptics we worked with the space and respect they needed.
CORRECTION
re: POINT:why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…
should read:
POINT: why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof…be taken seriously…when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…
ADDED COMMENT
vice scientific proof…the focus should be the positive on the positive outcomes of FC v positive outcomes of FC naysayers…
stanley seigler
Holy bollocks… he’s here again!
“POINT: why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof…be taken seriously…when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…”
Actually, a fair bit of ABA-validated research demonstrated the very limited usefulness of the approach. It remains a useful approach, since it seeks to ascertain the reliability of the results of assessments conducted before, during and after a programme of behavioural intervention. As such, it is by far the most scientific form of assessment-diagnosis-intervention we have. I am not a behaviourist myself but I do see the value of a lot of what behaviourist psychology has given us, especially in the field of learning… which is what the acquisition of skills (such as those involved in communication) essentially is.
The methods themselves are not under question. Some of the claimed outcomes and research-based rationales are. But the science itself is not.
Deal with being wrong.
“ADDED COMMENT
vice scientific proof…the focus should be the positive on the positive outcomes of FC v positive outcomes of FC naysayers…”
Ah – so Stanley Seigler the ‘great scientist’ (/deeeeeeeep sarcasm) gets to define the outcomes as a ratio. Wrong. You are making a claim and you have still not backed it up with any empirical science.
I refer you to what Prof. Cox says of people such as yourself.
AG: “Could it be that it is the Behaviorists that are “s—t-scared” about Facilitated Communication and one could question if they used some unethical behavior to protect their huge business empires?”
Are you joking me? Business empires? And you can’t see what Biklen’s built himself??
Arhur… get a grip!
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C.P.S.E say re:
re: Why would I waste eloquence on someone not intelligent enough to appreciate it?
you first have to have it before you can waste it…but
oh my sigh bless yo lil heart and foul mouth…why waste;
weel perhaps because wasted eloquence is better than wasted crap language and yo oh so “scientific name calling”…which proves “what” in the beloved scientific world you worship…maybe…
proves that you are an irrelevant, not to be taken seriously, foul mouth, cutie.
but would like to understand your scientific proof FC doesn’t work…as a start address sample size of test to which CPSE refers:
CPSE say: Irrelevant question -. we’re not informing an IQ test.
remember blog sequence leading to irrelevant question
1. dip say: [quoting a PhD physicist] “Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…”
2. in response to, “error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects”…CPSE say: Shitting Jesus [scientific for what], Stanley where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants… Pilot projects may use as few as 50 participants
3. dip say: what is the sample size of the test you (toad-etals) refer to that invalidate FC…1500???…
4. CRAP say: Irrelevant question…we’re not informing an IQ test…
since CSPS first stated less than 1500 or 50 not valid, question: why did CRAP bring it up if not relevant to ability of nonverbals…as CSPS is a brilliant “weal” scientist (hee-haaaaaaa), dip assumed there was some relevance…in any event what are the sample sizes of test to which CSPS refers…
the all important (root) question is the intelligence of non verbals…their ability to communicate…their innate ability to communicate (w/o formal education)…thru whatever means…mid 60s talking typewriter, FC, RP, etc…
re: I didn’t think swearing would discredit FC… that’s not the purpose. It is to let you know how contemptable your stance on it (as a ‘twue-bewiever’) is!
your contempt and weal science foul mouth is misdirected as is much of your crap (scientific) language…it should be directed at the “weal” scientists who deny the choice of FC to those on the spectrum…who refuse to practice observable science and bring up study sample size (50 to 1500) then calls it irrelevant, when asked the size of test/studies weal scientist use to bad mouth FC…
tho mainly a medical profession creed…all weal/pseudo scientists should take a page from the hippocratic oath: DO NO HARM. CSPS does much harm and sentences many on the spectrum to BB’s empty (silent) fortress…
well maybe not many as he is probably ignored by most …except for dips who believe one person condemned to BB’s silent fortress is unacceptable…
and…
CSPS does precious little (if any) good…as mentioned:
why the crusade to rid the world of FC if not for “venal pecuniary motives”…todd’s weal scientific for greed.
As in all walks there are the good, the bad, and the ugly…there are many good ABAers…eg, those non crusaders who say:
“I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”
BTW if yo foul mouth is a retts issue…my apologies for comments…if not clean up your act…it does nothing to improve your “do harm” FC position…au contra…
in any event you are too cute (by 1/2)…sad you waste time on being cute vice improving the quality of life for your friends on the spectrum…
re: Are you [art] joking me? Business empires? And you can’t see what Biklen’s built himself??
dip cant see…tell oh CSPSer what do you see…financial statements…private clients, SU salary…etc… sound like just another wild-a comment by a weal scientist…
doubt Biklen financial worth approaches the ABAers who charge $40,000 plus per client annually…and certainly does not begin to approach the arch ABAer matt israel’s JRC/TobinWorld business empire…
keep digging
stanley seigler
ps if you really want to contribute to a quality life for non verbals on the spectrum you might look at the innate ability to communicate…and promotional (mad ave) science of the behaviorists…”Promotion first, science later, if ever.” [dawson say]
Stanley…
You really are looking stupid here. And very condescending. You demean your FC users like you’re trying to with me? And you try (not very soundly) to call me on ethics? And this ‘do no harm’ thing: FC has done a great deal of harm to the families of many who have used it. And you – very callously – cast it off as being propaganda, basically.
What do you think people are thinking of you just now?
I know what I think of you. I know what a good few others think of you.
“if you really want to contribute to a quality life for non verbals on the spectrum you might look at the innate ability to communicate”
And if you want to contribute to a serious discussion on this issue (rather than just carry on being an idiot – and a very repetitive one at that!), you might look at the actual science behind autism instead of the crap you have immersed yourself in.
“doubt Biklen financial worth approaches the ABAers who charge $40,000 plus per client annually…”
Think again. His department is the only one at Syracuse that wasn’t attacked under the penny-pinch they had there… it was sacrosanct when every other department was having to either make cuts or go completely.
His ‘conferences/training-events’ gross about 900,000 dollars a time. Losing one – just one – would lose him a lot of money. So don’t come here defending that fraudulent arse and calling the ABA lot on the 40,000 dollars per year! You need to learn some research skills, before you make yourself look an even bigger pillock than you’re looking already.
“in any event you are too cute (by 1/2)…sad you waste time on being cute vice improving the quality of life for your friends on the spectrum…”
Smarmy git. As for helping other autistics… yes, I’ve been instrumental in some interventions for them (and others) but we didn’t use a bogus idea like FC in any of it. We used a very scientific approach and that worked very very well. Deal with being wrong.
“your contempt and weal science foul mouth is misdirected as is much of your crap (scientific) language…it should be directed at the “weal” scientists who deny the choice of FC to those on the spectrum…who refuse to practice observable science and bring up study sample size (50 to 1500) then calls it irrelevant, when asked the size of test/studies weal scientist use to bad mouth FC…”
The contempt is well-deserved, I can guarantee that. And if you can’t handle scientific language – what the hell are you doing trying to even talk to scientists? How arrogant and stupid does one have to be to be you?
Sample sizes can vary. With an IQ test, the larger sample size is about getting more of a cross-section of society represented so that the results can be checked for any biases according to – e. g., socio-economic status. For a study on FC somewhere between 30 and 50 is a reasonable pilot study sample size… percentile scores can be worked out to a 2 %-points accuracy, and that is good for a pilot. For many validation studies it is also quite reasonable. You being the scientist that you seem to think you are … how the hell could you not know that? Maybe you know less than you think. And maybe you understand even less than that.
“Promotion first, science later, if ever.”
That is exactly what Biklen is saying and has been doing since the mid-late 80s.
“the all important (root) question is the intelligence of non verbals…their ability to communicate…their innate ability to communicate (w/o formal education)…thru whatever means…mid 60s talking typewriter, FC, RP, etc…”
Yes, and this is an appeal to vanity by proxy (i. e., attacking the parents by appealing to their vanity about their children). Not everybody can be in the middle of the bell curve let alone at the top end of it. Some are down there at the bottom of it. Sure, it is for psychologists to find ways to assess intellectual ability in people who have severe communication issues going on, and there have been major strides in that area (e. g., one of the tests I am in a position to use – the Test Of Non-verbal Intelligence, 3rd edition – is administered using pantomime in that sort of situation and, since it has two forms, two independent testers can administer it, and effectively obtain an estimate of inter-rater reeliability).
You’re talking about this whole thing of ‘promotion first and science later’ but that’s your whole defence against anything levelled at you by Jason or Dwight or James… or me. And you avoid the issue – as does just aobut every other proponent of FC – of proper validation of the technique, using all manner of logical fallacies to justify not engaging in the scientific validation process. Why? If FC is that good, why not submit it to proper scientific validation? What would there be to lose? Nothing. And there’d be everything to gain.
Which is why I’m seriously suspicious of anyone who tries to find ways to avoid their ‘product’ being validated by scientific evaluation. Including – and especially – you.
I have a feeling you have a lot to lose personally if FC doesn’t get validated by a scientific evaluation process. And I think it’s of a financial nature. You in Dougie Biklen’s amazing Ponzi scheme, then, eh?
“1. dip say: [quoting a PhD physicist] ‘Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…'”
So what if the physicist has a PhD in physics. That is very highly irrelevant (unless it was in something extremely statistical and that dealt with behaviour of particles that act ‘lawfully’, but only on a statistical basis – as happens in statistical mechanics). Laws in StatMech are derived from statistical data in exactly the same way that laws regarding human behaviour are. How do I know? Because I have studied both disciplines and the methods of analysis employed in each. Incidentally, your PhD physicist might do well to examine the statistic used in psychological data analysis (psychological statistics): there are many tests involved in that type of statistics that do not exists in the statistical methods used in physics. Why? Because they have been developed to attempt to evaluate errors that might creep in because of the nature ot the subjects of study: human beings. So – basically – stuff what your PhD physicist says, unless that person has actually read and understood a psychological statistics manual… unless s/he has, s/he doesn’t have the first clue about the nature of the statistical analysis used in psychology.
You intent on making more of an arse of yourself?
Be my guest. But next time – try and come up with something new, rather than spewing out the usual ‘anti-science’, ‘anti-establishment’ bollocks that is all you seem to have the ability to do. You’re getting boring.
comment # 239 (I think)
Laurentius Rex wrote in comment #7 on October 6th, 2009 15:09:48 [UK time]
“With regards to FC, there is no doubt that there is evidence of massive fraud (or delusion).
On the other hand there are examples of people who have gone on to type independently, however I have to say seeing the ‘magical’ explanations from some advocates of FC, (who certainly do the cause no good whatever by their rejection of science) they are way out there with the homeopaths and pixies.”
Now, over 7 months later, I wish to add the comment that I do not reject science and I believe that science is a useful tool that should always be taken into consideration, but major life decisions require going beyond science. I believe my long-held position on science more properly expresses the actual position of “some advocates of FC” including Stanley Seigler and Tom Smith.
Replying to a more recent comments of David Andrews, if he provides me verifiable information (with links on the internet) to his claim of $900,000 conferences by Professor Douglas Biklen, then I will take seriously his statement about Biklen’s business empire. However, on this issue I am confident that I have a grip on reality and I am concerned about the grip on reality of David Andrews. I am also willing to read the very best paper on FC by Gina Green mentioned by Jason S. and give it serious consideration, but I cannot find any reference to it on the internet so a link would be appreciated.
With that stated, I believe that blog entries such as LBRB are not the appropriate place for long-term serious discussions and I intend to continue any discussions about FC on my own yahoo!group “autismfc” with some messages also placed on alt.support.autism of usenet to assure a permanent record. I do wish to express my appreciation to Kev Leitch the original writer of this blog entry for providing a forum about FC that did generate much interesting information about the views of skeptics and others.
Currently, I am busy moving to a new apartment, but I have decided to start a new thread on “autismfc” yahoo!group, where I will discuss my actual recent cooperation with Professor James Todd on arranging good scientific research involving my own son Ben, with the subject and initial paragraph of:
facilitated communication and autistics – good scientific research
Whatever I may or may not have done in the past, I am now fully committed to good scientific research about facilitated communication (FC), especially for autistics including my own completely nonverbal son “Ben” (Benjamin Ethan) Golden, born January 30, 1972 in Boston, Massachusetts USA and living in Israel since August 16, 1994.
Arthur Golden
“Replying to a more recent comments of David Andrews, if he provides me verifiable information (with links on the internet) to his claim of $900,000 conferences by Professor Douglas Biklen, then I will take seriously his statement about Biklen’s business empire.”
I’ll find you an actual text reference. I’m surprised you can’t see it yourself though. Mind you, if you keep deluding yourself that Biklen is a ‘saviour’ then – no surprise that you don’t see it!
“However, on this issue I am confident that I have a grip on reality and I am concerned about the grip on reality of David Andrews.”
I shouldn’t worry about that if I were you. I go where the science goes on this. And I know where the science goes on this. Because I have read the science… a great many papers (my ex-wife and I are working on a book about this very topic). And – yes – we were both trained in rigorous scientific method… and we both see nothing of scientific method in the way that the proponents of FC are going about promoting it. She was researching a topic in genetic engineering when we first met, and I was researching a social psychological aspect of being Asperger-autistic (having previously been a research technician in a medical physics department).
When you see a pattern in the research where less control in the study is paired up with a greater validity coefficient (and where greater control in a study is paired with a lower validity coefficient … you can tell straight up that there is no science validating the efficacy (or even utility) of FC… and that establishes the reality of what’s happening in FC. Like I say, you needn’t worry about my grip on reality. You need to worry about yours.
I’ll point out that I think there hasn’t been much new information transmitted in the comments for a while. Is this discussion valuable?
Sullivan say re:
re: I’ll point out that I think there hasn’t been much new information
new information, bilken’s $900,000 conferences…cant wait to see proof…also looking forward to link to green’s great paper…and
insights into the mentality of great scientific minds like andrews are invaluable…cant wait to read his and xwife’s book…hehaaaa…keep digging andrews…
stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C.P.S.E. say re:
re: For a study on FC somewhere between 30 and 50 is a reasonable pilot study sample size
thanks for the info…and to the original Q…what is the sample size of test/studies you and toad-etals use to put down FC…
re: The contempt is well-deserved, I can guarantee [really] that. And if you can’t handle scientific language [such as shitting jesus] – what the hell are you doing trying to even talk to scientists
didn’t know i was trying to talk to a shitting jesus, weal, scientist…
real scientist say you are full of it…keep digging cute kid …what does any of your “scientific” name calling and put down of a dip (never a scientist) have to do with science…see nothing of real or weal science in your too cute bs (rave on oh brilliant one, dig yo hole)
re: What do yo His [bilken] department is the only one at Syracuse that wasn’t attacked under the penny-pinch they had there… it was sacrosanct when every other department was having to either make u think people are thinking of you just now…
say what (Smarmy git)…is CRAP putting SU in the same category as his dip put downs…thanks for the company…seems SU saw the importance of bilken’s work…sadly CPSE and toad-etals do not…keep digging cute kid…
think mentioned, i could give a scientific crap less what people (especially CPSE) think of me…”To be a person of truth, be swayed neither by approval nor disapproval. Work at not needing approval from anyone and you will be free to be who you really are” (Rebbe Nachman)…seems CRAP needs others…but back to specifics:
re: His ‘conferences/training-events’ gross about 900,000 dollars a time…
the source of your data is and bilken received how much of this…seems like another wild-a, weal, scientist comment…
re: As for helping other autistics… yes, I’ve been instrumental in some interventions for them (and others)
name/describe one…may want to use it…i have observed my daughter’s peers (30 some) behaviors issues reduced as a result of FC….
re: I’m seriously suspicious of anyone who tries to find ways to avoid their ‘product’ being validated by scientific evaluation. Including – and especially – you.
as well yo should be …take a validation look at ABA scientific programs…oh/and, do you know anyone who uses FC
too much cute-kid ,scientific, bs to respond to now …CPSE do go on and on and on and on…maybe mo later…tho, nice/refreshing to see lack of his foul mouth in recent post…perhaps CPSE is learning…but will miss his 7th grade, scientific, shittin jesus, mouth…
stanley seigler
ps. pls correct CSPS in any/all my post to read CPSE (whatever that is)…
[CPSE say] FC has done a great deal of harm
CPSE knows this how…personal experience, scientific papers…whatever.
been around FC users since 1992…seen it work and not work…have never heard any special needs person or family say they were harmed by FC…with major exception of false rape/abuse charges…see rape charge comments on this blog…(eg, tom smith, 7 may; jason s 6 may and 5 may)…
what’s the harm CPSE has seen…something like the harm done by arch behaviorist, JRC’s Israel…
from observation and conversations the following three examples sum what i’ve seen/heard:
1) Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!” [PhD psychologist, not sure of FC]
2) I can only re-iterate the points I have raised. I have never suffered at the hands of typing or fc but I certainly suffered at the hands of behavior modification and segregation. [richard FC user]
3) “voices I [believe kevleith] trust implicitly within the neurodiversity movement speak out in favour of FC. Amanda Baggs, Kathleen Seidel”…and there are others…
If CPSE really wanted to protect his friends on the spectrum his time better spent crusading against the JRCs of the world…vice questionable scientific (see dawson re science) put downs of FC…denying those on the spectrum the right to communicate by whatever means they choose…
ask/not answered: why not follow ASHS guidelines and let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs…stop all the scientific crap…sounds more logical than anything I’ve heard on LBRB and elsewhere by the ABA promotional “scientists”…
BTW it’s not personal…CSPE, todd, are just the poster boys for those who scientificly deny many on the spectrum choice…tho, todd is on a higher promotional science level than foul mouth…but put more faith in foul mouth than todd…foul mouth has been there, done that…
maybe both are nice people…and it would blow their minds to talk/FC with sue rubin…
in the mean time…keep digging CSPE…
stanley seigler
“stop all the scientific crap”
Says it all, really. Seigler is anti-science.
“CSPE, todd, are just the poster boys for those who scientificly deny many on the spectrum choice”
Wrong entirely. What we want is scientifically validated options for those on the spectrum. Evidently you don’t, given your ‘stop the scientific crap’ call.
What a ridiculous pair of statements you’ve made. I don’t need to dig anything, by the way. Everything you regurgitate on here give plenty rich pickings.
I’ve explained my reasons for choosing to require scientific validation over anecdotal recommendation, and I’ve backed it up with an example from professional practice dating back to when I was a research technician in medical physics, working under the supervision of a PhD physicist (whose job was to ensure scientific integrity).
I’m very certain of one thing, as a result of my training – in both psychology and physics (and, actually, in archaeology as well) – that those who do not want the involvement of anything scientific to provide an accurate evaluation of their pet ‘idea’ are the ones who are most aware of the problems associated with their ‘idea’ and have reason to fear that these problems will ensure that their ‘idea’ will not be validated by the science: they already know this and they don’t want it to be brought out.
The point of the science is to systematically evaluate any mode of support or intervention put forward to see if the evaluation will provide evidence to support claims made regarding efficacy and utility: basically, trying to answer two questions – ‘does it work?’ and ‘is it useful?’. If it fails to answer the first question, it cannot possibly answer the second one.
So, in response to the likes of Arthur Golden and Stanley Seigler, I make no apologies for insisting on science as the way to answer those questions. If we didn’t insist on science asking those questions of all pharmaco-therapeutic interventions (including the humble pain-killer), we would end up with a flooded market in which we would be purchasing untested medications, whose efficacies were(at best) questionable and whose utilities really could not be guaranteed to any significant degree.
I am very certain that Arthur and Stanley would be appalled if such a medication came out… as well they (and we) should be. So, what I find incomprehensible to the point of being practically stupid is the stance that Stanley so clearly takes on the FC question; namely that of ‘stop the scientific crap’.
If a method is sound, the evidence from scientific evaluation will come forward to support it. So, without that evidence, anyone saying that something will work and is useful is making a claim that is (at best) untested and (at worst) absolutely false. Pity that Arthur and Stanley and others like them do not wish to give people the chance to know this about FC, since the denial to people of that knowledge effectively denies the same people the right to an informed choice in the matter of whether to use FC.
And there is nothing that either Arthur or Stanley (nor, for that matter, their beloved Dougie Biklen!) can say that is going to shift me from being committed to evidence-based practice.
Aww, David, you left out the renowned FC expert and street panhandler, Tom Smith!
You’re so compassionate Clay. It’s fun to kick people when they are down eh? Especially if they disagree with you politically. I’m being facetious of course. You’re a sick boy. Get help.
Dave, like patriotism is often the refuge of scoundrels, proclaiming “evidence based interventions” in autism is such too. I don’t mean to say we don’t need evidence to inform our decisions, we certainly do, but to evoke that as the only solution is to be clueless about the vagaries of our evidence based interventions.
I’m not here to put down science, I used it all the time in my work and it’s why I’m here supporting FC. While the evidence may suggest that FC is unconsciously coming from the facilitator, there are other explanations for what is happening. The fact remains that both parties, the facilitator and communicator, are motivated by this communication and it at least mimics, or has the same components, as the best of communication. This is powerful therapy because it normalizes human relations. That can be proved. As for what is really happening in FC I think we can use the communication carefully and study it. This is not a reason to ban the method and none of the professional orgs suggest that but recommend it be used carefully.
Tom whined:
“You’re so compassionate Clay. It’s fun to kick people when they are down, eh? Especially if they disagree with you politically.”
I can be compassionate, but when it comes to you, I remember what you did to Juli. So how long you been down, 7 years, isn’t it? I guess that’s what happens when your karma runs over your dogma. You can call your women-hating a political thing, but I think your problem is just psychological. You probably love dogs and hate cats, because cats “don’t know their place”, and won’t come when you call them. Similarly, you want women to be obedient, like dogs.
“Dave, like patriotism is often the refuge of scoundrels, proclaiming “evidence based interventions” in autism is such too. I don’t mean to say we don’t need evidence to inform our decisions, we certainly do, but to evoke that as the only solution is to be clueless about the vagaries of our evidence based interventions.”
Tom, from what I have seen here, you already know that this is how we progress. What sifted the wheat from the chaff in herbal medicine was what became the science of pharmacology: an evidence-based practice. So don’t try to fucking bollocks me about there being any other solution to this issue of ‘how do we get to know if FC works or not?’, because there isn’t another way. Systematic evaluation is what brings that evidence. So, stop bollocksing me, and stop bollocksing yourself. End of story. Deal with it.
“Aww, David, you left out the renowned FC expert and street panhandler, Tom Smith!”
Clay… can you see why now?
“I’m not here to put down science, I used it all the time in my work and it’s why I’m here supporting FC. While the evidence may suggest that FC is unconsciously coming from the facilitator, there are other explanations for what is happening.”
Okay Tom … so tell them – if they actually exist as proper explanations. If they don’t exist as properly researched explanations… do the research and come back and tell them. Or shut the fuck up. Bring up the evidence – because that is what it would be, if it passes muster in terms of quality – and even then – that suggests that, like it or not, you have to provide evidence that something works (and how it works).
“This is powerful therapy because it normalizes human relations. That can be proved.”
Actually – this has not properly been ‘proven’.
Try again. Come back with evidence. Or shut up.
clay say: I remember what you [tom s] did to Juli. So how long you been down, 7 years
and this has to do with FC…HOW
stanley seigler
a sailor who has been to sea…
Tom: “This is not a reason to ban the method and none of the professional orgs suggest that but recommend it be used carefully.”
American Psychological Association: “Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular, information obtained via facilitated communication should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy.” (my italics)
Looks pretty much like a ban to me, Tom. Given that these are the usual purposes for a psychologist to be involved in a case… telling psychologists not to use information produced by FC in those instances where a psychologist is likely to be involved is pretty much a ban.
I am just checking to see if I (and apparently only I) am still on moderation or if I can now exercise a timely right of reply (although it may not be exercised for a number of hours).
Edit – it appears I am no longer on moderation. Thank you very much.
Arthur Golden
comment #253
Real sniping can have rather negative permanent consequences, but fortunately there is only verbal sniping going on here. I am willing to assume that everyone involved here is righteous and genuinely concerned about helping others, expecially nonverbal autistics. Unfortunately, there seem to be some very serious communication problems going on here and I do not mean through Facilitated Communication.
Rather than try to engage in any further mutual sniping, I think it would be more productive for me to repeat some positive statements (with any negative phrases retracted) that I have made before in a couple of the comments on this blog. I hope that these positive statements will be understood by others and will lead to all righteous people working together to help others, especially nonverbal autistics. At this point I will provide one live link to the public open archives of my autismfc yahoo!group and thereafter I will refer to message numbers, which can found by going to this webpage:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/autismfc/messages
On May 12, 2010, I posted 6 messages to autismfc, message #2009-2014, which contained most of my recent comments to this blog entry from May 4-12, 2010 – comments #199, 208, 210, 218, 228 and 239.
comment #228 of May 7, 2010 (delayed in posting because of moderation, also autismfc message #2013) includes:
…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. I prefer to be open about such scientific research and we can discuss it here in public on this blog…. I commit to keeping strictly confidential any emails I receive from any other Behaviorists in reply to this offer. Emails can to sent to me at golden.arthur at gmail.com
comment #239, autismfc message #2014 includes:
I do not reject science and I believe that science is a useful tool that should always be taken into consideration, but major life decisions require going beyond science. I believe my long-held position on science more properly expresses the actual position of “some advocates of FC” including Stanley Seigler and Tom Smith.
Replying to a more recent comments of David Andrews, if he provides me verifiable information (with links on the internet) to his claim of $900,000 conferences by Professor Douglas Biklen, then I will take seriously his statement about Biklen’s [huge] business empire…. I am also willing to read the very best paper on FC by Gina Green mentioned by Jason S. and give it serious consideration, but I cannot find any reference to it on the internet so a link would be appreciated.
With that stated, I believe that blog entries such as LBRB are not the appropriate place for long-term serious discussions and I intend to continue any discussions about FC on my own yahoo!group “autismfc” with some messages also placed on alt.support.autism of usenet to assure a permanent record. I do wish to express my appreciation to Kev Leitch the original writer of this blog entry for providing a forum about FC that did generate much interesting information about the views of skeptics and others.
Currently, I am busy moving to a new apartment, but I have decided to start a new thread on “autismfc” yahoo!group, where I will discuss my actual recent cooperation with Professor James Todd on arranging good scientific research involving my own son Ben, with the subject and initial paragraph of:
facilitated communication and autistics – good scientific research
Whatever I may or may not have done in the past, I am now fully committed to good scientific research about facilitated communication (FC), especially for autistics including my own completely nonverbal son “Ben” (Benjamin Ethan) Golden, born January 30, 1972 in Boston, Massachusetts USA and living in Israel since August 16, 1994.
Arthur Golden
Edit – p.s. I see that this comment is back on moderation but I pray that it will be quickly approved for the sake of helping others, especially nonverbal autistics such as my own son Ben.
[CSPE say] Says it all, really. Seigler is anti-science […] I don’t need to dig anything
it really do! sad one has to explain to weal scientists how it… Says it all: Seigler is anti-science-CRAP…the kind of hypocritical, promotional, science-CRAP demonstrated here by one poster boy…
if poster boys were real v weal scientist they would see (but none so blind as those who will not see), neither ABA nor FC are real science (maybe art, FC a van gogh). they would attack ABA and FC as does ms. dawson: “Promotion [crap science] first, science later, if ever.”
“I [CSPE] don’t need to dig anything”…but yet you keep digging the hole you’re in…not very scientific.
Actually as mentioned all the crapola could end if ABAers would just cease their, motived by greed and fear, FC snake oil, crusade and agree to ASHA guidelines…let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs/support…
so unnecessary crusade does indeed sentence many on the spectrum to BB’s empty (silent) fortress…shame, shame, shame…
sadsadsad, real scientist didn’t follow up on the goodwins talking typewriter (no facilitator, same hard copy as FC) of the mid 60s…and now they want to criminally continue the imprisonment by denying FC can surface an innate ability, to communicate w/o a formal education, some/many (most/all) have…
stanley seigler`
[CSPE say] the science of pharmacology: an evidence-based practice. So don’t try to fucking bollocks me [my way the only way Andrews] there isn’t another way.
THANKS. Great analogy…BIGpharma is to ABAers: as BIGpharma’s mad ave promotions are to ABAers’ anti-FC and crap-science promotions…keep digging and you will be able to justify science proving nicotine not addictive.
of course ABA not hard sience(more art) and BPharma is
[CSPE say] Actually – this has not properly been ‘proven’…
guess CSPE talking about all ABA pseudo-science as ms dawson argues convincingly…
fyi:
during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion…The study is important because it provides the most accurate image yet of the promotional workings of the pharmaceutical industry, says
stanley seigler
Stanley…
You’re getting incomprehensible. All you’re doing is regurgitating stuff
without actually backing it up.
“…but yet you keep digging the hole you’re in…not very scientific.”
I’m not digging any holes. I’m just watching you regurgitate absolute twaddle…
“if poster boys were real v weal scientist they would see (but none so blind as those who will not see), neither ABA nor FC are real science (maybe art, FC a van gogh). they would attack ABA and FC as does ms. dawson: ‘Promotion [crap science] first, science later, if ever.'”
As an example – the above. What on earth are you talking about? You really are making no sense.
ABA is in fact a very scientific way to understand the environmental contingencies that give rise to and then maintain behaviour patterns. There is – sadly for you – no question about that. FC, on the other hand – and (again) sadly for you – has never done well in any scientific attempt to validate it. This is also not under question.
“Actually as mentioned all the crapola could end if ABAers would just cease their, motived by greed and fear, FC snake oil, crusade and agree to ASHA guidelines…let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs/support…”
Hmmm… where to start debunking this!!!
Have you actually read the ASHA guidelines? Because, if you have, you will notice that there is a very strong insistence on proper scientific method. AS is made clear in the first paragraph:
“The discipline of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is committed to advancing knowledge through basic, translational, and applied research regarding (a) normal speech, language, hearing, and swallowing; (b) the nature, prevention, and amelioration of communication and swallowing disorders; and (c) intervention strategies and the effectiveness, efficiency, and outcomes of clinical treatment. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) believes that advancements in basic knowledge and clinical practice emerge from the diligent application of sound research methodologies and the peer-reviewed, published dissemination of findings. Throughout its history, ASHA has relied on scientific research and scholarly publication to advance knowledge in critical areas related to the discipline and the professions.”
You may wish to observe the emboldened text where we see mentioned explicitly “the diligent application of sound research methodologies and the peer-reviewed public dissemination of findings”. Further into the introduction to said guidelines, we find the following:
“ASHA is mindful of the position taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1975, noting that ‘one of the basic responsibilities of scientists is to maintain the quality and integrity of the work of the scientific community’. Federal guidelines define scientific misconduct as ‘fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results’. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion”. Others have added the general notion of questionable research practices to the discussion.”
Their commitment to a scientific basis for evaluating any treatment measures to be used by professionals – in their case this means speech therapists (but this can be generalised to include all professionals with whom a client will end up being involved) – is very clear, in that they base their own guidelines on the philosophy of the AAAS … which is that treatments must be subjected to scientific scrutiny in order to determine whether the evidence to support them is sufficient and of high enough quality.
Of particular interest here is the section on data management:
“Prior to data collection, the following topics should be included in discussions among co-investigators to ensure that paper and electronic data are private, secure, accurately recorded, and trustworthy:
1. Experimental protocols;
2. Methods of recording and coding data that maintain the confidentiality of participants’ identity;
3. Methods for securing data, including secure electronic access and storage;
4. Format of laboratory notebooks;
5. Methods for copying, backing up, and cross-checking data;
6. Methods for recording data so that the research record can be readily understood.”
You’ll notice that this is very much oriented towards a scientific way of investigating treatments and the things for which treatments are likely to be required/requested. The emboldened words give this away.
So you might now see why I get offended when you are constantly coming here and spouting utter nonsense (e. g., “and now they want to criminally continue the imprisonment by denying FC can surface an innate ability, to communicate w/o a formal education, some/many (most/all) have…”), which is nothing but an emotionally-driven diatribe intended to depict the scientists as being nasty characters, denying opportunities for people.
The truth is, however, that those who refuse to allow their method of choice to be subjected to a proper scientific investigation are the ones who do this… and that includes you.
You might also wish to use grown-up language. You’re behaving like an idiot. Am I to infer from this behaviour that you are one?