Lots of terrible doctors, misdiagnoses, human suffering.

My point is that they may have had a general idea of what was happening but may not have had any knowledge of physical evidence. They may have even considered religious  possibilities. Outward behaviour from someone suffering heart problems may very well have been seen as a result of psychological problems. Even now, without the appropriate knowledge, many physical problems can be viewed as psychological.

O RLY?

I haven't even begun to start quoting Clarke or Asimov, both of whom were scientists as well as authors. I believe that Sir Patrick Moore also came out as believing there must be life elsewhere (though obviously nowhere near us and not near enough to visit, either), as well as dozens of other prominent scientists.

But please, continue.

Not entirely true. Aspergers is being grandfathered into Autism, as there is no sense in having two separate entries for two things that have been shown to be one and the same; Existing DX's will also be grandfathered into HFA diagnoses.

This post was last modified: 12-14-2011 12:33 AM by ῦ.

So those heart docters were wrong at that time and didn't know enough.
So what else should they have done other than use the best knowledge they had at that time and do more research? Giving such an example with our current knowledge is extremely misleading and you can't prove this is an accurate analogy as you don't have the evidence to support it.

The DSM-I was introduced in 1952. How much more time is needed to prove a non-physical mental disorder?

The people you quote all think intelligent extraterrastrial life exists. They all talk about possibilities, not facts. And it makes perfect sense too when you change some parameters in the Drake equation. But which one of them actually proved it? No one.
(Yet. Or never. Or tomorrow. Or...)

Please read, not all DX's will be converted into another DSM category:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pa...px?rid=97# Rational, Q3.

What I was trying to point out, Aspiesaurus, is that most of your arguments seem to be based on the idea that one and only one of these two theories (social construct and genetic) must be true. It could be that both theories have some merit, or that both are completely wrong. Simply disproving the genetic theory does not automatically prove the social construct theory. I was trying to get you to defend what you're putting forth.

That's the thing about research of any kind; no-one knows.
And, I don't really see that it matters.
We haven't found the Higgs boson or colonised another world yet, does that mean we should scrap CERN and our space projects and write a paper about how impossible it all is so let's just change our minds an bleh...?
I don't see how this theory can benefit anybody and it could be used to support the all too common idea that we're making it up.

Why not write the paper and then post that?  That would be interesting to read, I think, and we could all then discuss with that as the focal point.
Alison

He'd plagiarise himself.

Your exact wording;

You were wrong.

This post was last modified: 12-16-2011 11:05 AM by ῦ.

All your quotes talk about probability, most of them (in)directly based upon the Drake equation: The size-argument, the time-argument, etc.
If you have no better arguments on-topic, please do not pollute the thread.

It would be a draft then.

So far I'm quite disappointed in the studies, researches, tests, genetics, etc. presented here. I'm quite surprised with this, as there should be an overwhelming amount of claims supporting the biochemical model of autism.
A social construct view of autism would help AFF with its aims, in a relative easy way (=no hardcore science involved):
- To prevent eugenic elimination of autistic people by opposing pre-natal testing for autism. [genetic elimination would be incredible ridiculous with the view of autism as a social contruct]
- To oppose physically or mentally harmful "treatments" targeting autistic people. [treatments would be incredible ridiculous with the view of autism as a social contruct]
- To emphasise the "spectrum" view of autism, and de-emphasise the differences between the various autistic spectrum labels.
- To oppose the idea of an autism "cure". [talking about a cure would be incredible ridiculous with the view of autism as a social contruct]
- To evaluate alleged treatments for ethical approaches. [treatment?]
- To increase funding for, and access to, autistic support services and ethical forms of treatment. [treatment?]
- To oppose negative publicity campaigns against autistic people as a group.
- To help promote an accurate yet positive image of autism.
- To oppose all forms of prejudice and bigotry.

Some comments were useful though and I'll take them into account.

Cool. Write your paper. I'd probably read it.
I still don't see how it conflicts with genetics or how it could be useful.
It's not going to fix science and it seems like a poor argument. Why won't you consider points properly instead of just ignoring them or stating that they're invalid for what seem like completely bogus reasons?
Calling me a troll. Telling pikajedi not to pollute the thread. Dismissing perfectly good arguments just because they're theoretical. Well guess what, your paper will be about as valid as a Clarke novel and will be completely theoretical with less basis in fact and less proof than genetics and no amount af arguing is going to change that.

And ofcourse you say that in advance, a nice example of magic thinking.
Probably wishful thinking..
Calling arguments good doesn't make them good.. it's a petitio principii (logical fallacy).

Things that at least will be included:
- Statistics (especially twin studies)
- Comorbidity (especially LFA)
- Real problems people with autism have (either LFA/MFA/HFA)
- History of xenophobia in society
- The pseudoscience of the DSM
- Current trend of increasing psychopathology: normal behaviour becoming a mental disorder (e.g. mourning/grief -> depression disorder)

Well, good luck with changing the scientific status quo without any evidence or compelling logic to support this theory.