Hi Batou456 and Simen,
Sorry for the delay to respond. I couldn’t catch up with what Batou456 and Simen wrote even though now I don’t understand fully. I can’t read between the lines what westerners usually imply, and I need time to compose sentences. Please don’t be too hard.
For example, I didn’t understand why Batou456 refer to the establishment because I didn’t intend to refer to Christianity or church. I’m rather an atheist or maybe close to an natural borne Taoist. I didn’t know if my sentences recalled what the establishment says, but if so, please understand that I'm just standing for autistic people including me who have risk to be applied misapplied science as Autistic_Shoes referred to Asperger's paper.
What I mean with the establishment is simply the sum of the leading scientists and institutions in some branch of science. So when I say the establishment usually has the view that is best supplied with evidence, I mean only to say that in general, the leading scientists and institutions hold the view that is most reasonable to hold at any given time.
But it's true that, if you look at the history of science, sometimes a paradigm shift doesn't happen because a theory has better evidence but because of other, more human concerns. Maybe the newer theory surpassed the older one long ago but the establishment was reluctant to accept it, or maybe the establishment got too carried away with a new, neat idea that they jumped on it whether the evidence was there or not (this might be what has happened with string theory in particle and theoretical physics).
So my statements were just general; in any given case, the establishment might be wrong; but also, in any given case, it might be difficult for outsiders without the right training and knowledge to assess it.
And I’m not confining my opinion only to the science which Simen mean. I think the definition of science may differ a bit from my understanding. What do you include and exclude if you say science? For example, do you exclude Jungian psychoanalysis which is sometime used in clinical therapeutic field in Japan still now? I understand it is not showing laboratory-testable evidences so much, but it utilize mythology that is confirmed simultaneously all over the world despite any cultural connection between them was observed.
Likewise, I learned from phenomenon outside of laboratory as I wrote "I was inspired it through my private relationship with my friend with DID." DID is observed all over the world as similar symptom without any connection between individuals.
Since human is not inorganic matter like caloric fluid, I think testable evidence is not always available. If such way is exclusively applied to us, as if we are an inorganic matter, the result of testing causes people to misunderstand because it's obviously biased.
When I speak of evidence, I don't mean only laboratory evidence. There's a whole branch of science called "behavioral science", which is about observing how life (including humans) behaves in certain circumstances and devising hypotheses about why. Needless to say, we cannot recreate anything in a laboratory because many behaviors only happen in the sort of conditions a lab can't provide.
So we shouldn't restrict outselves to "lab testable evidence". Plain old evidence is enough.
As for Jungian psychoanalysis, I don't know how much evidence it has, but you seem to indicate it's not primarily based on testable evidence. But I'm not a science nazi: of course we can't scientifically test anything. If Jungian psychoanalysis works for one person, by all means, go ahead. But it might also have unintended consequences, or it doesn't cure the source as much as the symptoms, or it only gives the appearances of a cure; these are circumstances that science could help uncover.
I think we should be as rational as we can, provided we recognize that rationality only works if we lay down some axioms (foundational claims; e.g., a moral axiom may be "you shall do the least amount of harm possible"). Rationality, of which science is part, is a tool, a means to an end (and for some who like science, an end unto itself; but that doesn't mean those who don't care about science would think so).
However, it’s OK if you say science should only be endorsed by laboratory-testable evidence.
No, I simply say that science should (and does) strive for evidence; not necessarily testable in a laboratory.
I agree that observed phenomenon itself doesn’t lie, so it would be accountable as Batou456 wrote. But even in the laboratory, researchers could be influenced by their prejudice because they also need their subjectivity to compose their interpretation. If it’s the case of object outside from us, it would work well. But, once the viewpoint is directed into mankind itself, who could have such objectivity? I’m wondering how researchers assure that their interpretation itself about autistic behavior is accountable while most researching post are occupied by neurotypical, and accessibility to verification is practically restricted only to them. Note that sum of subjectivity, which means the consensus supported only by neurotypical, doesn’t compose absolute objectivity because we are both inside of mankind. Since human interaction and communication depend on relativity, there should also be autistic point of view at least to maintain virtual objectivity.
This is all true, and nicely put too.
Since I’m not “educated” in such way as Simen wrote, and I can’t read atmosphere of scientific world, my position would be similar to an impatient boy in Andersen’s Story “The Emperor's New Clothes” shouting that “But he has nothing on!” I accept it. But how a man with dyslexia could be educated while education system is also designed only for neurotypical, and many other autistic children are driven into same situation. This is another reason why I insist that science loses objectivity by itself. Don’t take it as complain or expression of delusion of persecution because I don't, personally, think it so negatively, and I am rather happy to be rejected from formal education because being forced to read textbook annoyed me in most cases. I learn things in the same way as a baby who learns what phenomenon of falling is without being taught about the story of Newton’s apple and what the gravity is. I’ve just needed textbooks to collect the words to express my thought.
The boy in the story does have evidence: he saw the emperor stride naked before him. And if you have evidence, then you could indeed be like that, pointing out the seemingly obvious that the scientific establishment has ignored.
But to do so, you must be able to give an account of how you can test your hypothesis, and why we can reasonably expect something interesting to come out of these tests, since scientists work on limited resources and would like to use them as reasonably as possible.
The science is built only by language because it treat only matters that are explainable by language. According to my theory, it could be said that science is tend to be fettered to digital thinking, which is the main way of neurotypical, and it is intrinsically advantageous rather for neurotypical than for autistic people. It is also referred by Autistic_Shoes "Our method originates in intuition..." in Asperger's paper.
Considering about this preface, it is not fair for autistic people that science is misapplied by neurotypicals. The attitude of scientists that is not attempt to take seriously what patient say by persisting in scientific evidence, is also considered as discrimination. At least, they should stop people to misunderstand that autistic brain has somehow defect. My intention is, by showing a reasonable hypothesis, to stop such movement.
This is the misapplication of science. Current science is not so good that it can simply show that a patient who says, for instance, "My head hurts" is lying. But I think you agree that if a person (autism or not) goes about telling obvious lies (e.g., someone who stands there hitting themselves while claiming to be totally calm), evidence can show the contrary.
I agree that patients shouldn't be treated as liars all the time, of course.
