A correction

That’s what separates science advocates from the Magical Thinking Crowd – we admit mistakes. When was the last time an AoA editor said “Whoops – my bad!” except when they allow one of my comments to go through?

[ANB say] That’s what separates science advocates from the Magical Thinking Crowd – we admit mistakes. When was the last time an AoA editor said “Whoops – my bad!” except when they allow one of my comments to go through

COMMENT
we admit mistakes…that separates science advocates…well i suppose…but depends on degrees of separation…and which discipline the science advocates cherry pick to defend or deride with their science…andand

how long it takes science advocates to admit their mistakes (so much harm done in the mean time)…eg, bettelheim…some still support refrigerator parent science.

re: ms dawson’s MISBEHAVIOUR OF BEHAVIOURISTS…when’s the last time you heard a behaviorist say whoops it’s promotional science…oh/and…

many science advocates deny seeing is believing science (observational science) the basis of most science…the earth revolves around the sun.

stanley seigler

many science advocates deny seeing is believing science (observational science) the basis of most science

@stanley: I think you’re confused about the concept of observational science. Basically, there’s experimental science, where you conduct experiments to test hypotheses. Sometimes you simply cannot conduct controlled experiments, though, and that’s where observational science comes in.

Epidemiology is typically an observational science. You can’t, for example, force people to smoke to see if lung cancer is the result.

In some cases, however, you might stumble upon a “natural” experiment, like when 98% of thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines.

Comment above is a spammer.

@Stanley, are you saying you believe everything Ms Dawson says, and take her at her word?

Last year at the ABAI conference in Denver, I did indeed hear a quite scathing critique of the commercial turn ABA has taken in some quarters. The presentation was one of a series that BAs must attend to meet the ethics component of their continuing education credits. There has been somewhat of a backlash from the “academic” behavior analysts against the methods seen by some of the commercial companies. Some academics have set up an online service that teaches parents and caregivers to deliver evidence-based services to children at a fraction of the cost of employing a commercial company. Basically most if not all of the criticisms Dawson raised in her original paper have been well addressed by now. Certainly the evidence for effectiveness is well covered by now. She did well to raise some of the issues which needed highlighting, but to keep bouncing up and down on them as if they were still current is just not correct. Every science needs its gadflys, but there has been no recognition that there has been massive progress in the field.

This doesn’t change the fact that ABA remains the most effective treatment for most children. Sadly it is this fact that has resulted in somewhat of a bandwagon effect. There are some issues with ABA that are acknowledged and are being called out. A large ABA provider has allied itself (or claimed “compatibility”) with the biomed crowd. Apparently the provider justifies this as ensuring that ABA reaches these kids, but for the science-minded this is an appalling sellout. There are a lot of people claiming qualifications and delivering services who are not actually qualified. Behavior analysts are apparently charging like lawyers in some school districts. This is awful. This is something BAs have identified and are trying to stamp out themselves. It is also an issue facing the other autism providers, hopefully they are taking similar action against abuse of the system.

Dawson’s view of behavior analysis is woefully dated and very biased. Not all behavior analysis is based on Lovaas. He was one high-profile guy – back in the day. Not the originator, nor, at this point in time, the person who has contributed the most to the body of knowledge. The NZ review does not incorporate the Lovaas research at all – in line with Dawson’s recommendations. It still concludes that ABA is the state of the art treatment for autism, based on post-Lovaas research. It is unfortunate that Dawson’s opinions coincide with the political agendas of people who would rather not fund treatment of autistics with severe symptoms. If her views did not offer a “politically correct” option for refusing treatment for autistics, then I doubt we would hear very much at all about her at all.

Can I recommend this paper which addresses a number of the misrepresentations made by Dawson as well.

A Case Study in the Misrepresentation of Applied Behavior Analysis in Autism: The Gernsbacher Lectures
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686987/

The last post in which I mentioned Dawson resulted in my getting called out for being prejudiced against her as an autistic researcher. So for the record, I would like to state that I am an autistic researcher as well, who (horrors) happens to have a different opinion to Ms Dawson. (and I don’t actually conduct autism research, except for one side project) I am also an autistic researcher who happens to be the mother of a severely autistic son (the diagnosis of a second son is in limbo).

@McD

sorry didn’t realize you referred to a oct2010 post…so to answer your question.

no. i do not believe all ms d says…nor just take her word for it…have strong disagreement on some issues…but do agree re ABA promotional science…

as an engineer, not a scientist, try to apply common sense to all positions…tho, after 40 some years of autism bs (cause/cure/treatments) i am very skeptical/cynical of most positions.