petrossa wrote:Do a study of people diagnosed with autism AND having had a white matter scan showing anomalies. That should be your baseline.
mvic wrote:I think for now the DSM has to hold as the basis of diagnosis as it is all we have. But people should be aware when doing studies, that if you assume a DSM diagnosis as the definition of Autism, and then go on to study and make conclusions about "autism" then you are indeed using a circular proof.
autismjabberwocky wrote:By that logic taking the definition of word from a dictionary is also a circular proof.
Edited to add - it is circular if people then take their own definition, do studies on what they have defined and then conclude things about the subjects/condition based on that study.The word "autism" means whatever the definitive source says it means - that isn't circular
mvic wrote:An example is early studies on Aspergers excluded women because they "muddied the data". These studies were used to refine what Aspergers meant and create new proofs and definitions - if they were really nonsensical it could have been taken as far as to prove "women don't get aspergers". Because it was defined by the male form of the condition. You see how this is meaningless.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], causalset and 78 guests