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.
I think I understand better.
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.
That's fine. But As I wrote, objectivity of interpretation about behaviors would never been assured as long as accessibility to testing is practically restricted.
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.
The same things could be said to medicine and pharmacy. I think some psychiatric drug doesn't cure the source as much as the symptoms, or it only gives the appearances of cure.
But in this case, science couldn't uncover by itself because it is only observed by subjectivity of patient, and it would be ignored in most cases.
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).
I agree that we should be as rational as we can, but today, science seems to be over-confided by many people who don't understand it enough. I think scientists are responsible to deny such overconfidence and misunderstanding, so that people don't lost their reason.
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.
Thank you for understanding.
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.
I think pointing out that objectivity in autism research is lost is enough to compare with a boy though I may not be only and the first one who did it.
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 first part of my theory, which is explaining about detail of analog and digital processing, could be tested systems-theoretically, but I can't give it here in English. It is a draft idea of an artificial intelligence. And it may also be tested by emulating using digital computer about only basic function. However, I don't think it could be tested by neuro-science of today because I don't think there is effective method to prove the function of brain in holistic level.
The second part, which is explaining about consciousness, could be confirmed by well trained Jungian psychoanalyst. But it is depending on subjectivity of psychoanalyst, so I'm not sure if it could be approved commonly.
But I asked an Italian psychoanalyst who is qualified by Jung Institute, he expressed to me his approval.
The third part, which is prospecting statistical dispersion, it requires survey to prove it by inventing new intelligence test or by modifying conventional test such like WISC. It is because present intelligence test is considered not to be appropriate to test analog processing capability.
I think it's quite hard because it must be conducted by interdisciplinary point of view, and it require a lot of resources. I don't know if it's realistic.
However, my theory could be used more practical level such like in educational field or in psychotherapy field for autistic people. My main intention is for those. They might not need scientific evidence always.
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.
Finally, it seems to be held moderate understanding between us I think. Thank you.
Ryu
I try here on this message but I'm no sure if it appear.
