A new understanding of autism?

[AuAL]

Final article in series, part 2:

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Forming a consensus by opinion by getting a group of experts into a room is not science. Real science is; if one member disagrees further experiments are done to bring them on side then a unanimous consensus happens. Soft science likes to us the first method passing itself off as science.

 

[Au Naturel]

Forming a consensus by opinion by getting a group of experts into a room is not science. Real science is; if one member disagrees further experiments are done to bring them on side then a unanimous consensus happens. Soft science likes to us the first method passing itself off as science.

Actually... In real science, the one who disagrees has to present information and research to support the denial. If it passes peer review, then it gets published. Only then will further testing happen. Just disagreeing with the dominant theory without an equally well-supported alternate theory isn't enough. Research, experiments, and analysis are expensive and time-consuming and the possible reasons for disagreeing are almost infinite.

The problem with soft sciences is that they avoid using the scientific method. There is a well-known crisis in reproducibility in psychology and a less well-known one in medicine.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

That's why I not a fan of soft science. a committee is not peer review but rather consensus like a jury. I noticed Temple gradin is not a impressed that this is how the upgrade th DSM.