On September 14, 2013, exactly a month before I started writing this post, I was contacted by a colleague who expressed an interest in changes in behavioral practice since Lovaas's original methods and models of clinical treatment.
During the resulting exchange, I attempted to explain a variety of things related to behavior analysis, ranging from how ABA is not a treatment method to the relationship between ABA and PBS (the short version is that PBS is a brand-named philosophy regarding how to go about conducting and using ABA research). I also provided her with a number of assorted articles and writings on the subject, including a piece of my own work which acted as an overview.
I ended the exchange on something of a positive note, hoping that the information would help. The positive note, however, did not last.
This is what she wrote... or, at least, the currently-published version. There has been a rather spectacularly intellectually dishonest edit in the interim. It's, to put it mildly, an extraordinarily poor critique. The arguments are, by and large, spectacularly off-base, and her abuse of my writing is glaringly obvious (if not as much so as before the edits).
That said, I should probably discuss what this means and why it's a problem before I get into a detailed critique of the piece itself.
Contrary to what some people apparently believe, saying that a critique is poor does not mean that one disagrees with its conclusions or that the critique does not deal with real problems. It is saying that the critique misidentifies the issues involved and/or argues from a position of misunderstanding or prejudice.
In this case, the author is attempting to argue that all forms of applied behavior analysis are inherently unethical -- a very, very strong conclusion, one that simply does not follow from the evidence (such as it is) and arguments (such as they are) that she presents. Saying so isn't defending ABA, and certainly isn't excusing, justifying, or apologizing for the assorted abuses with which people have valid complaints.
This is important for several reasons -- not the least of which is that poor criticism serves to distract from real issues, detracts from good criticism, and confuses issues in ways that impair efforts to reform things.
To illustrate this, let's take a very different example, one that most of us can rapidly identify, easily understand, and generally make easy sense of: one of the more disgusting things which occurs whenever news story publishes a story about a black man raping a white woman.
Rape is obviously wrong: it's a gross violation of a woman's bodily autonomy, a dehumanizing act which can easily (and often does) destroy her life. It is very difficult to think of a worse violation of someone's personhood... and the ethnicity and skin color of perpetrator and/or victim is utterly irrelevant to this.
Unfortunately, however, some people insist on making the moral issue here about race in a variety of ways. One of the simpler (and more vile) of these is to simply state that the act was wrong because a man like that (a black man, not a rapist) has no business sexually touching a White woman.
This is an absurdly poor (and racist) criticism of rape. It is one that needs -- urgently -- to be shouted down and combated whenever it pops up.
Referring to this sort of thing as poor discussion or
off-base criticism is very much not excusing the heinous criminal act to
which the alleged criticism was directed. It is simple truth.
The race thing serves to distract from the real problem. To the extent to which it gets attention, it's distracting people from paying that same attention to other, more relevant, criticisms.
But... let's say that some people actually took it seriously. Let's further say that they then tried to use it as the basis for political reform efforts.
These efforts would be useless at best and harmful at worst. In fact, that particular criticism can pretty much be considered a form of rape
apology in and of itself: if the rape of a white woman by a black man
is only heinous because of the race difference, what's wrong about a
white man raping a white woman?
More, such "reform" efforts would likely target and harm completely innocent interracial couples. In fact, such prejudices and acts have historically caused very substantial harm in the form of blatantly racist legislation and various racial prejudices for just this reason.
Obviously, this has little directly to do with the ABA article which started this discussion, but does serve to illustrate a few very important points: 1) poor criticism is rarely helpful; 2) poor criticism is often harmful, even when its conclusions may be correct... and 3) stating that an argument is poor is not the same thing as stating that its conclusion is wrong.
In Part Two of this series, I will hopefully get to precisely why the specific critique that started this is poor and unlikely to be helpful. In Part Three, I will discuss just why I'm taking such pains to lay out these problems, why a simple blog post like that has lead to me starting an extended blog-rant, just what followed from the situation, and why it's taken me so long to post all of this.
Showing posts with label humanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humanity. Show all posts
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Sunday, July 22, 2012
On Child Abuse
One of the more annoying aspects of trying to comment on or understand legal matters, especially for someone like me who's neither a lawyer nor a legal professional, is that laws vary across jurisdictions. What is legal -- or illegal -- in one area is not necessarily legal or illegal in another.
This would be a lot less problematic if the law -- or legal research, for that matter -- was simple and/or straightforward. Simply put, it is not.
While child abuse is illegal in every state, the statutes vary. Even when they're the same or similar, the case law (or legal precedents) vary as well. In practical terms, this means that while child abuse is illegal in every state... the meaning of the term isn't the same in each.
For instance, in Michigan, the relevant definition (§ 722.622, for those of you interested in looking it up) reads:
Of course, this doesn't explain just what does (or doesn't) count as "nonaccidental" injury or "maltreatment". That's what case law is for.
I live in Florida, however, so the Florida statutes are of somewhat greater personal interest to me. This is especially true given the corollary of my residence: most of the kids I personally care about and have worked with live here, too.
Here, the statute (s. 827.03, for those of you who want to look it up -- or you can just go here) reads:
As always, however, there are points where the seemingly-straightforward law becomes ambiguous. For instance, what does it mean to "willfully torture" someone? Then there's the reasonableness standards which pop up throughout. Perhaps by necessity, there's a great deal of vagueness there.
One of the major purposes of case law is to clarify this vagueness. Unfortunately, however, case law is a tangled, overcomplicated mess at the best of times. I -- to be blunt -- hate having to delve into the topic.
This does not, however, mean that I am unwilling to do so. I just prefer to leave it to the professionals.
In fact, I am aware of a number of cases which impact on the definition provided above. I've actually read a couple of them in their entirety while researching a specific issue.
The first of these, Nicholson v. State, was decided by the Florida's Supreme Court in 1992. I will not bother detailing the circumstances of the case (they're extraordinarily disgusting, and listed in the decision I linked anyway), and the reasoning of the decision depends on a definition which has since been removed from the statute. That said, the court ruled that "willful torture" under the statute explicitly included acts of omission -- such as failure to provide food -- provided they were committed with the willful intent to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering.
The case also continues to be cited as precedent by other cases despite the statutory change.
The second of these, Cox v. State, was decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in 2009. A couple of the more relevant passages:
I leave further case-law research to the legal scholars... who are, frankly, generally far better at it than I am.
I bring all of this up because of the latest inane fad "treatment" for autism -- the bleach enema.
Giving your child an enema is very definitely an intentional act -- it's rather difficult to unintentionally take a bag and shove fluid up your child's posterior. In the case of bleach enemas, it also could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury.
This means that, under section (b) of the definition above, the act of giving a child a bleach enema constitutes child abuse under Florida law.
Or, at least, that's my reading of the matter. As I noted before, I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, so people don't -- and shouldn't -- particularly care about my opinion in legal matters. Anyone who has a different interpretation is more than welcome to elaborate on it or discuss it in the comments.
Does it, however, constitute aggravated child abuse? That's a thornier question, and the ultimate goal of my legal research. If the process includes aggravated battery, or actually causes "causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement," then I believe it would.
If it doesn't? Maybe. It depends on the legal meaning of "willful torture" in this context, and that's fuzzy enough. I suppose it could easily depend on the lawyers involved.
You'll note that I'm including a lot of statements like "I believe" and "I suppose" here. I pretty much have to. There are reasons why I hate legal research. These are the sort of points which lawyers have been known to debate endlessly in courtrooms, and legal textbooks often take multiple chapters to answer them in the most circuitous and tentative ways imaginable.
In any case, the more interesting part of the definition is part (c). According to this, even actively encouraging people to commit child abuse constitutes child abuse in and of itself. I would argue that promoting bleach enemas as an autism treatment qualifies.
On top of all of this, we have Florida's mandated reporter statute. Without getting into the details, it requires people who know of or suspect child abuse to report it to a Florida abuse hotline (1-800-96-ABUSE). This requirement is (on the statutory level) taken quite seriously -- failing to make a report when required to do so is a third degree felony. Making a false report is also a criminal act (also a third-degree felony), but people acting in good faith are immune from prosecution.
What all of this means is that -- at least according to my own reading of the statute -- anyone who has reason to suspect that a child is being "treated" with bleach is legally required to call the hotline.
Whether the laws will actually be enforced in practice is an entirely different matter... and, frankly, one that I'm in no mood to discuss.
In large part, this mood goes back to the beginning of this blog post, where I noted that things vary by jurisdiction: I did not choose Michigan's laws as an example by random chance.
As I write this, I am looking at a letter, from the Michigan Department of Human Services, written on official letterhead... whose contents boil down to a statement that, under the Michigan Child Protection Law, repeatedly giving your child bleach enemas in the name of autism "treatment" does not qualify as child abuse.
Go figure.
This would be a lot less problematic if the law -- or legal research, for that matter -- was simple and/or straightforward. Simply put, it is not.
While child abuse is illegal in every state, the statutes vary. Even when they're the same or similar, the case law (or legal precedents) vary as well. In practical terms, this means that while child abuse is illegal in every state... the meaning of the term isn't the same in each.
For instance, in Michigan, the relevant definition (§ 722.622, for those of you interested in looking it up) reads:
'Child abuse' means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare that occurs through nonaccidental physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or maltreatment by a parent, a legal guardian, or any other person responsible for the child's health or welfare or by a teacher, a teacher's aide, or a member of the clergy.Alternately, there's another definition in § 722.602:
“Child abuse” means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare by a person responsible for the child's health or welfare, which harm occurs or is threatened through nonaccidental physical or mental injury; sexual abuse, which includes a violation of section 145c of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.145c of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
Of course, this doesn't explain just what does (or doesn't) count as "nonaccidental" injury or "maltreatment". That's what case law is for.
I live in Florida, however, so the Florida statutes are of somewhat greater personal interest to me. This is especially true given the corollary of my residence: most of the kids I personally care about and have worked with live here, too.
Here, the statute (s. 827.03, for those of you who want to look it up -- or you can just go here) reads:
(1) “Child abuse” means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury
to a child; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be
expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.
A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent
disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishableFrankly, I like the Florida statute far better than I do the Michigan equivalent. This is for a variety of reasons... but that's an entirely different discussion.
as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
As always, however, there are points where the seemingly-straightforward law becomes ambiguous. For instance, what does it mean to "willfully torture" someone? Then there's the reasonableness standards which pop up throughout. Perhaps by necessity, there's a great deal of vagueness there.
One of the major purposes of case law is to clarify this vagueness. Unfortunately, however, case law is a tangled, overcomplicated mess at the best of times. I -- to be blunt -- hate having to delve into the topic.
This does not, however, mean that I am unwilling to do so. I just prefer to leave it to the professionals.
In fact, I am aware of a number of cases which impact on the definition provided above. I've actually read a couple of them in their entirety while researching a specific issue.
The first of these, Nicholson v. State, was decided by the Florida's Supreme Court in 1992. I will not bother detailing the circumstances of the case (they're extraordinarily disgusting, and listed in the decision I linked anyway), and the reasoning of the decision depends on a definition which has since been removed from the statute. That said, the court ruled that "willful torture" under the statute explicitly included acts of omission -- such as failure to provide food -- provided they were committed with the willful intent to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering.
The case also continues to be cited as precedent by other cases despite the statutory change.
The second of these, Cox v. State, was decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in 2009. A couple of the more relevant passages:
Aggravated child abuse is largely determined on a case-by-case basis rather than with bright-line rules as to what conduct does and does not constitute aggravated child abuse. Herbert v. State, 526 So.2d 709, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This flexibility is critical to allow for consideration of such factors as the age of the victim, the frequency of prohibited conduct, and other circumstances relevant to a particular case. It is clear, however, that “the first-degree felony of aggravated child abuse [is] preserved for truly aggravated circumstances.”
However, this court has held that aggravated child abuse for malicious punishment is reserved for “cases involving parental discipline that results in great bodily harm or permanent disabilities and disfigurements or that demonstrates actual malice on the part of the parent and not merely a momentary anger or frustration.” McDonald, 785 So.2d at 646
I leave further case-law research to the legal scholars... who are, frankly, generally far better at it than I am.
I bring all of this up because of the latest inane fad "treatment" for autism -- the bleach enema.
Giving your child an enema is very definitely an intentional act -- it's rather difficult to unintentionally take a bag and shove fluid up your child's posterior. In the case of bleach enemas, it also could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury.
This means that, under section (b) of the definition above, the act of giving a child a bleach enema constitutes child abuse under Florida law.
Or, at least, that's my reading of the matter. As I noted before, I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, so people don't -- and shouldn't -- particularly care about my opinion in legal matters. Anyone who has a different interpretation is more than welcome to elaborate on it or discuss it in the comments.
Does it, however, constitute aggravated child abuse? That's a thornier question, and the ultimate goal of my legal research. If the process includes aggravated battery, or actually causes "causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement," then I believe it would.
If it doesn't? Maybe. It depends on the legal meaning of "willful torture" in this context, and that's fuzzy enough. I suppose it could easily depend on the lawyers involved.
You'll note that I'm including a lot of statements like "I believe" and "I suppose" here. I pretty much have to. There are reasons why I hate legal research. These are the sort of points which lawyers have been known to debate endlessly in courtrooms, and legal textbooks often take multiple chapters to answer them in the most circuitous and tentative ways imaginable.
In any case, the more interesting part of the definition is part (c). According to this, even actively encouraging people to commit child abuse constitutes child abuse in and of itself. I would argue that promoting bleach enemas as an autism treatment qualifies.
On top of all of this, we have Florida's mandated reporter statute. Without getting into the details, it requires people who know of or suspect child abuse to report it to a Florida abuse hotline (1-800-96-ABUSE). This requirement is (on the statutory level) taken quite seriously -- failing to make a report when required to do so is a third degree felony. Making a false report is also a criminal act (also a third-degree felony), but people acting in good faith are immune from prosecution.
What all of this means is that -- at least according to my own reading of the statute -- anyone who has reason to suspect that a child is being "treated" with bleach is legally required to call the hotline.
Whether the laws will actually be enforced in practice is an entirely different matter... and, frankly, one that I'm in no mood to discuss.
In large part, this mood goes back to the beginning of this blog post, where I noted that things vary by jurisdiction: I did not choose Michigan's laws as an example by random chance.
As I write this, I am looking at a letter, from the Michigan Department of Human Services, written on official letterhead... whose contents boil down to a statement that, under the Michigan Child Protection Law, repeatedly giving your child bleach enemas in the name of autism "treatment" does not qualify as child abuse.
Go figure.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
On Bad Parents
Today is Autistics Speaking Day. To follow in the tradition of last year, I'm going to take the opportunity to talk about something that I wouldn't normally blog about. Be forewarned that this is not -- at all -- a pleasant topic. In fact, it's downright disturbing. If you are a parent to an autistic child, this will be particularly disturbing to you. If you are autistic yourself, it will be equally disturbing in a completely different way. Be forewarned.
During that exchange, a lot of issues -- many of which are very important -- relating to the parent/self-advocate divide in the modern autism world were discussed. By and large, the parents present were interested in helping their child and were willing to respect and try to understand the viewpoints and interests of autistic people. And, while I can't directly confirm this, I strongly suspect (and have no reason to disbelieve) that those parents love their children and wanted to do what they could to help them. I believe (and have no reason to disbelieve) that, to those parents, their involvement in autism issues was not primarily about themselves or their personal interests and desires, but rather about trying to raise their children.
One fact, however, was not mentioned during that dialogue, and it's a simple fact that while the above can almost certainly be said about the parents who participated in the Dialogues, it certainly cannot be said about all parents. Put another way, not every parent of an autistic child is a good parent.
"Good" and "bad" are relative, of course, and everyone makes mistakes. I'm not trying to demonize or stereotype the parents of autistic children here.
Still, there's an attitude among parents' groups characterized by the presumption that each parent loves their child and is generally trying to raise their child as best they can. There are three real problems with this -- and I've already discussed the first one. Specifically, parents are human and thus fallible. Even if a parent is trying to raise their child as best they can, this doesn't mean that they are.
The second problem with that presumption is far simpler. It simply isn't true.
I know I've repeated myself here. This was deliberate. The point needs to be driven in -- preferably with a metaphorical sledgehammer.
For years, I've been reading coverage of parents doing truly awful things to their children. Take for instance, Marguerite Famolare, as quoted in this article about the Judge Rotenberg Center. According to her, the center's systematic torture of her child is great -- after all, if she shows him the remote control to his shock harness:
He'll automatically comply to whatever my signal command may be, whether it is 'Put on your seatbelt,' or 'Hand me that apple,' or 'Sit appropriately and eat your food,'" she says. "It's made him a human being, a civilized human being.
I have to rather strongly disagree with her definition of humanity. Beyond this, I think that the quote speaks for itself.
Then there's the case of Karen McCarron, who I recently learned is trying to appeal her well-deserved sentence and get a new trial. Her story is, in a way, much simpler to explain -- she murdered her daughter and blamed her actions on said child's reified neurology. According to her lawyer, McCarron believed that Jesus would bring her child back, sans certain reified aspects of how she learned and experienced the world.
I did not select these two cases at random. While I could have picked from a lot more, including many not on that list (which is rather outdated at this point), they serve as illustrations of the fact that there are some phenomenally bad parents out there. Some of said parents have autistic children.
More importantly, however, they serve to illustrate another factor -- the ways in which certain attitudes prevalent in the autism world can be used as justifications for truly monstrous acts towards autistic people. When I object to, for instance, the reification of autism, I am doing so for damned good reason. When I talk about psychosocial stigma, I am not talking about something even remotely close to trivial.
Finally, these cases are public -- they have public documentation which I can link to. Trust me, I have a lot of examples from personal experience. I've spent a surprisingly large amount of my professional life trying to clean up the messes that bad parents and poor parenting decisions (of various sorts) have left behind.
The third problem with the attitude I referenced is central to the attitude itself and not the underlying beliefs. There is an old saying that "sympathy for the guilty is treason to the innocent." The saying -- and the underlying meaning behind it -- apply here. Yes, parents of autistic children often function without adequate support, are stressed, are under incredible pressures, etc. If, however, we choose to allow this to detract even one iota from our condemnation of this sort of parent's inexcusable actions, if we say that Karen McCaron's actions were "really about a lack of support" or some such, we are essentially arguing that the act of torturing or murdering an innocent child is excusable.
I disagree with this in the strongest terms possible.
Such actions need to be condemned. We, as a community, owe that duty to Karen McCaron's and Marguerite Famolare's victims.
I have, at this point, been writing this blog entry all day -- essentially dropping everything else in my life to do so. It is, however, phenomenally difficult for me to do so. As I type this sentence, it is 6:17 in the evening. I have been writing this almost since I finished breakfast.
As the amount of time I've spent on this text implies, this is not an easy topic for me to write about. I don't even like to think about parents such as those two. I originally intended to write far more about them than I did... but gave up on several (actually rather important) points simply because I couldn't bring myself to write them. In fact, I even dropped one major and prominent example of bad parenting from my list -- simply because I didn't think I could stand writing out another paragraph detailing such behavior. I know for a fact that I will regret that decision.
I would love to think that every parent was a good one, that (all) parents could be trusted to act in their child's best interests, and that we could count on parental love to ensure that our parents would be our allies.
Unfortunately, I know all too well that this is simply not true.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
And Then There's These... People
When you work with one of the most vulnerable populations in America, you quickly start to realize just how nasty the human race can be. While I don't know who said it, there's a rather famous quote which about sums it up: "There is no such thing as an inhuman act, for there is no act so vile that you cannot find a human willing, even eager, to commit it."
Some of the things I have seen defy description. The things I've seen news coverage of are worse. This was rather spectacularly demonstrated yesterday, with an article from the LA Times that highlights this in a truly awful fashion.
I've tried to write out the story several times. I can't, as hard as I try. As such, I'll just quote the article -- which really does speak for itself.
As I said, the story speaks for itself. The photos can be found here.
Some of the things I have seen defy description. The things I've seen news coverage of are worse. This was rather spectacularly demonstrated yesterday, with an article from the LA Times that highlights this in a truly awful fashion.
I've tried to write out the story several times. I can't, as hard as I try. As such, I'll just quote the article -- which really does speak for itself.
The package mysteriously left at Los Angeles County Sheriff's headquarters shocked even some of the department's most grizzled detectives: A hundred hours of video footage showing severely disabled women, many in diapers, being sexually assaulted by anonymous men.
The attacks appeared to have taken place at residential care centers, authorities said, and most of the attackers are believed to be employees. One suspect appears to be a paraplegic patient, hoisting himself off his wheelchair, before removing his diaper and that of his victim's, and beginning his assault.
The footage, dropped off in March, has left detectives with few leads. Though authorities are confident the scenes were shot in residential care facilities, it's unclear if they are located in Los Angeles County. Much of the footage is so grainy that only the faces of four of the estimated 10 men could be made out.
Authorities Thursday asked for the public's help in identifying the men, releasing screenshots and composite drawings of the attackers.
"Maybe they can identify these people," said Sgt. Dan Scott. "Maybe they can identify the room."
Detectives are also hoping the tipster who dropped off the package will come forward. The footage left at sheriff's headquarters in Monterey Park came with a note explaining how he discovered the video. He had been commissioned by a man to scrub a computer hard drive, but before he did, he burned 100 hours of video files onto DVDs.
Detectives said the women in the videos appear to be between 20 and 40 years old, some appearing almost entirely unresponsive. The men appear to also be between 20 and 40. The footage, detectives said, appears to be a collection, with some men appearing in more than one scene. Some of the footage was shot with a handheld camera, with the rest appearing to be captured by a security camera, detectives said.
Enhancing and analyzing the video took several months, authorities said. Detectives have not contacted local residential care centers yet, an official said.
Anyone with information is asked to call Special Victims Bureau detectives at (866) 247-5877. Anonymous tipsters can call (800) 222-TIPS.
As I said, the story speaks for itself. The photos can be found here.
Monday, November 1, 2010
An Open Letter to Buzz Aldrin
Today is Autistics Speaking Day. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the event, it's an autistic reaction to the highly-misguided "Communication Shutdown Day", a day in which we autistic people make as much online "noise" as possible... on the day in which hordes of people are voluntarily abstaining from our preferred means of communication.
I won't discuss why the whole idea is a bad one. Others have already done so -- far better than I ever could. Instead, I'm going to post an open letter to one of the major participants in this farce.
I won't discuss why the whole idea is a bad one. Others have already done so -- far better than I ever could. Instead, I'm going to post an open letter to one of the major participants in this farce.
Dear Mr. Aldrin,
When I was a child, the Apollo missions were a great inspiration to me. They truly stand out among the achievements of mankind as a spectacular triumph of science and a shining example of what man is capable of if we truly try. You, along with the other Apollo astronauts, were my childhood heroes. Your triumphs fanned the flames of my love of science, helping raise it from the bare embers of a childhood interest into a lifelong passion. Your successes comforted me when things seemed hopeless, helping to reassure me that even the seemingly impossible was often within reach.
Today, I am a graduate student in Nova Southeastern University's M.S. Counseling program and working towards board certification as a behavior analyst. My dream is to go into psychological research and to help raise the standards of the discipline to the point where psychology and the other "soft" sciences can be legitimately compared to the "hard" sciences in terms of methodological rigor... and to come, bit by bit, closer to the countless truths I seek. This is not to say, however, that I do not face substantial challenges in reaching my goal.
The worst of these challenges are prejudice and fear. You see, I have a disability. One of my professors flat-out told me (in writing, no less) that having it was unprofessional... in a course where a third of the course grade was participation and professionalism. My clinical ethics textbook states that I am not human. Fear-driven efforts to create a world without people like me in it have already claimed countless lives throughout the world, including at least ten innocent babies in California... this year alone. There's even a clinic within easy driving distance of my house dedicated to chemically castrating people like me.
My disability is most commonly called "autism".
This is why it hurt me so incredibly much to hear that you, one of my childhood heroes, has been raising money for a fear-mongering antivaccine group dedicated to the goals I mention above. I can only hope that you did this out of ignorance; the thought of you having done so knowingly just hurts far too much.
As you may or may not know, the proceeds from Communication Shutout Day go to the program's "global partners". In America (outside Colorado), this means Giant Steps, the Hollyrod Foundation, and the National Autism Association. It's this last which is the most concerning.
The National Autism Association is an anti-vaccine group dedicated to promoting untested, unproven, and often dangerous "treatments" for autism. They praise intravenous chelation (which risks death and brain damage, and, more importantly, involves pumping an irritant into a child's veins for at least two hours at a time). Their 2009 conference, which was held within walking distance of my house, featured a keynote presentation by Andrew Wakefield (whose unethical conduct and Mengele-like "experiments" were largely responsible for major measles outbreaks throughout Europe), a presentation blaming my neurology on MSG in vaccines, and a presentation on why my neurology should be considered a disease (among countless other things). One of their past conferences even involved a keynote from an infamous quack who makes his living chemically castrating autistic children (and who is responsible for the clinic near my home). They recently were involved in a concentrated effort to effect legislation here in Florida which would have effectively banned the flu vaccine. I am perfectly willing to provide references and further information on any of these assertions on request.
Mr. Aldrin, you are old enough to remember many of the diseases which vaccines prevent. For instance, with polio alone... the iron lungs, the countless children who were crippled for life... to groups such as the NAA, bringing back these things is worth it if it means not having people like me or my friends around. You should also remember Jonas Salk and his heroic dedication to the welfare of the children of the world. To groups such as the NAA, Jonas Salk and countless others like him are villains. I find it difficult to express the sheer perversity of this.
I will admit that the NAA has also campaigned against the more "classic" abuse of children with disabilities in the forms of seclusion and restraint. This, however, mainly serves to help legitimatize them and to help them lend support to other, wackier anti-vaccine organizations such as Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, and the National Vaccine Information Center. In a recent conference presentation on the NAA, I referred to them as a "gateway organization" because of their function in such groups' recruitment tactics.
I won't pretend that this is the only thing wrong with Communication Shutout Day. I strongly encourage you to read what Ari Ne'eman of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network has written about the matter ( http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=122 ) and to peruse the various online writings relating to Autistics Speaking Day and the reasons for it.
In the meantime, however, I have to go to bed tonight knowing that one of my childhood heroes has chosen to raise funds for a group whose dedication to creating a world without people like me in it is so strong that they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of countless innocents to create it.
Sincerely,
Alexander Cheezem
Saturday, August 28, 2010
On Paternalism, Murder, and Genocide
Most people don't think of paternalism and murder as compatible. The same could be said for paternalism and genocide. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing incompatible about the concepts.
Paternalism is an attitude. Murder and genocide are actions. They're completely different things.
To commit paternalistic murder, all you have to do is to kill someone because you believe they're better off dead -- to kill them "for their own good". To commit paternalistic genocide, you simply have to generalize this to a demographic group.
It's a sad commentary on the state of things in the world of disability that we have to seriously worry about this intersection.
Paternalism is an attitude. Murder and genocide are actions. They're completely different things.
To commit paternalistic murder, all you have to do is to kill someone because you believe they're better off dead -- to kill them "for their own good". To commit paternalistic genocide, you simply have to generalize this to a demographic group.
It's a sad commentary on the state of things in the world of disability that we have to seriously worry about this intersection.
Friday, August 27, 2010
I Always Want to Be Right (And You Should, Too)
I always want to be right. When I say this, I don't mean that I want to win arguments. That's not being right -- that's having other people tell you you're right. I mean that I want my beliefs to reflect reality. I want all of my beliefs to reflect reality -- if not perfectly, then at least as fully and completely as possible.
I do not want to believe I can fly when I can't. The practical consequences of this are perhaps best described by the term "splat".
I do not want to believe that a cure for cancer works when it doesn't. The practical consequences of this are paid in wasted money and unnecessary side effects. By the same token, however, I don't want to believe that a cure doesn't work when it does. The practical consequences of this are commonly referred to as "dying in horrific agony". Selecting an effective (and helpful) treatment or cure is one of the hardest -- and most important -- parts of medicine.
I do not want reality to conform to my existing beliefs. That idea -- the foolish wishing for what I tend to derisively call "magic god powers" -- may make for a nice fantasy on occasion, but is usually a waste of time. I want my beliefs to conform to reality. I want to believe what is true, not for reality to follow from what I believe.
I do not want others to sit back and say nothing when I express an inaccurate belief. If they do so, I lose the opportunity to correct my beliefs. I fully understand that the price of being right is admitting that you have been wrong. I accept and eagerly pay this price. Metaphorical humble pie may taste awful, but it's very good for you.
I do not want others to hold back in debate. I want to hear the best, most valid arguments that the people I'm debating can put forth -- and I want them to support these arguments as well as they can. I, in turn, will do the same. I will hold my position with the best arguments I can come up with (as the circumstances allow) in hopes of drawing out the best, most thorough counterarguments possible. If I did otherwise, I would deprive myself of evidence and reasoning that could help me develop a better, more informed view of the issue we're debating. If I "win", so be it. If I "lose", so be it. Either way, I'll be using the reasoning and evidence to reevaluate my position... and will very often change it.
Of course, this changing isn't always obvious. I usually reevaluate my position after the debate... and I often play "devil's advocate", offering forth arguments that I don't really believe (but can't easily counter) in order to draw out a precious -- and useful -- counterargument.
I don't want to reach premature final judgment... and my beliefs tend to be more probability estimates regarding the possibility of something being true than actual beliefs that something is true. Truly wanting to be right means being comfortable with the limitations of one's knowledge.
And, in the end, as I reflect on my attitudes and my desire to be right... I can't help but think that the world would be a better place if more people desired to be right, too.
I do not want to believe I can fly when I can't. The practical consequences of this are perhaps best described by the term "splat".
I do not want to believe that a cure for cancer works when it doesn't. The practical consequences of this are paid in wasted money and unnecessary side effects. By the same token, however, I don't want to believe that a cure doesn't work when it does. The practical consequences of this are commonly referred to as "dying in horrific agony". Selecting an effective (and helpful) treatment or cure is one of the hardest -- and most important -- parts of medicine.
I do not want reality to conform to my existing beliefs. That idea -- the foolish wishing for what I tend to derisively call "magic god powers" -- may make for a nice fantasy on occasion, but is usually a waste of time. I want my beliefs to conform to reality. I want to believe what is true, not for reality to follow from what I believe.
I do not want others to sit back and say nothing when I express an inaccurate belief. If they do so, I lose the opportunity to correct my beliefs. I fully understand that the price of being right is admitting that you have been wrong. I accept and eagerly pay this price. Metaphorical humble pie may taste awful, but it's very good for you.
I do not want others to hold back in debate. I want to hear the best, most valid arguments that the people I'm debating can put forth -- and I want them to support these arguments as well as they can. I, in turn, will do the same. I will hold my position with the best arguments I can come up with (as the circumstances allow) in hopes of drawing out the best, most thorough counterarguments possible. If I did otherwise, I would deprive myself of evidence and reasoning that could help me develop a better, more informed view of the issue we're debating. If I "win", so be it. If I "lose", so be it. Either way, I'll be using the reasoning and evidence to reevaluate my position... and will very often change it.
Of course, this changing isn't always obvious. I usually reevaluate my position after the debate... and I often play "devil's advocate", offering forth arguments that I don't really believe (but can't easily counter) in order to draw out a precious -- and useful -- counterargument.
I don't want to reach premature final judgment... and my beliefs tend to be more probability estimates regarding the possibility of something being true than actual beliefs that something is true. Truly wanting to be right means being comfortable with the limitations of one's knowledge.
And, in the end, as I reflect on my attitudes and my desire to be right... I can't help but think that the world would be a better place if more people desired to be right, too.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Ten Research Methods Articles Every Parent Of an Autistic Child Should Understand
Perhaps understandably, many parents of autistic children keep an eye on (or attempt to keep an eye on) the latest research and treatments. Parents' lists are regularly flooded with discussion of various treatment methods, medical research studies, psychological studies, and just about anything else one could imagine... most of it related to research.
At the same time, the average parent knows around as much about how research is conducted and about what study findings really mean as does the average sixth-grader. This combination is very much not a good thing.
Simply put, many of the conclusions parents reach when reading the literature are not anywhere near accurate. Even many of the most basic aspects of research are commonly misunderstood in truly dramatic fashions.
The ideal solution, of course, would be to sit every parent of an autistic child down and give them a series of college-level (undergraduate or postgraduate) classes on the scientific process. Unfortunately, this is pretty spectacularly unrealistic. Frankly, many parents could use classes on critical thinking skills, too, but that's every bit as unrealistic.
As such, I've compiled a "Top Ten" list of papers which cover things that most parents don't get. Of course, like any such list, there are a number of biases operating in how I've constructed this. Perhaps a reader will be able to spot some of these... and, as an exercise for my readers, I've tried to make a few of them as blatantly obvious as possible. Narrowing this down to ten papers was emphatically not easy, and there are a number of papers which almost (but did not quite) make the cut for a variety of reasons. I may blog on a few of them later.
To finish: for the purposes of this list, I've defined "research methods articles" as any peer-reviewed writing dealing primarily with the design, conducting, and interpretation of research.
Edit: Also note that there's usually more than one good article on any of these topics, and I excluded "duplicate" articles. I often had to drop very good articles which deserved to be on this list because of that.
10. Strech & Tilburt (2008). Value judgements in the analysis and synthesis of evidence.
One of the (many) reasons why conflicts of interest are so important when dealing with research is the fact that there is a lot of wiggle-room in experimental design. Scientists routinely make value judgments in designing and interpreting research, and this paper serves to highlight many of the ways in which this impacts the process of research.
Just as a quick illustration: how do my value judgments impact the content of this top 10 list?
9. Rutter (2008). Epidemiological methods to tackle causal questions.
In this paper, Matthew Rutter (who I admittedly have issues with relating to other works) discusses the issue of attempting to determine the cause of something without being able to manipulate it in a lab (or clinical trial, etc.). Of course, in the modern autism world, it's more important to understand how it's possible to establish the reverse -- that something is not the cause of something else -- without an experiment... and that is, admittedly, often far simpler.
8. Lesaffre (2008). Use and misuse of the p-value.
Statistical significance testing is one of the most ubiquitous aspects of the modern scientific process. Unfortunately, it's also the source of many of the problems with it. As scientists haven't been able to find (or settle on) a better alternative, however, it still pops up just about everywhere.
One statistic -- the p-value -- is central to this process. Unfortunately, many people (including scientists) misunderstand just what the p-value is, what it means, and what it represents. Lesaffre's paper discusses this and the issues surrounding it.
7. The PRISMA statement.
One of a number of "reporting standards" documents which standardize scientific reporting in the medical literature, the PRISMA statement deals with systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and specifically with which items of the review's process and methodology most need to be reported.
The other documents of this type (e.g. the CONSORT and STROBE statements) are also very important, but the PRISMA statement deals with ways to document the possibility of biases that effect the process of drawing a conclusion from the entire body of available literature. By contrast, the others deal with the conclusion of single studies.
Of course, since what's important is understanding, most interested parents should read the explanation and elaboration document, not the PRISMA statement itself.
Were I doing a longer list, the CONSORT statement, at least, would be in here. As is, however, I believe that the biases covered by the PRISMA statement to be more important for parents of autistic children to understand... and, frankly, I felt that one major standards document was enough for this list.
6. Manchikanti (2008). Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: Introduction and general considerations.
The concept of evidence-based medicine has revolutionized clinical practice over the past few decades. This article discusses the concept of evidence-based medicine, its history, its tools, and countless other related topics, providing a great introduction to the medical literature... and provides a basic foundation for understanding it.
Best of all, it's available for free.
5. Ioannidis (2008). Perfect study, poor evidence: Interpretation of biases preceding study design.
Even if a study is designed, conducted, analyzed, and reported perfectly, it can still be biased or otherwise flawed in a large number of ways. This paper reviews and discusses this phenomenon, including (but not even close to limited to) such factors as poor scientific relevance, straw man effects, and the importance of the analysis of the geometry of a research field.
4. Ioannidis (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated.
When something is first discovered, researchers' estimates of its importance are generally exaggerated. This article discusses this phenomenon and the reasons for it, painting an unusually frank and readable picture of just why this happens.
3. Ioannidis (2005). Why most published research findings are false.
One of the more annoying aspects of science is the fact that we know that most of our discoveries are simply wrong. The problem, however, is that we don't usually know which ones until far later. This is one of many reasons why replication is so important in the sciences and why the habit of interpreting individual studies, taken in isolation, as "definitive" is really, really problematic. "False positive" findings abound in science -- especially the social and medical sciences -- and often lead armchair scientists or doctors astray.
This paper, one of the most influential papers published in the last decade, discusses this phenomenon and the reasons for it. If you have time to read the responses and the discussion that followed the publication of this article, that is also very much worth the effort of doing. I particularly recommend Mooneshinghe, Khoury, & Jannssens's (2007) essay, Most published research findings are false—But a little replication goes a long way.
The full text is available for free. I really love open-access scientific literature. Long live PLoS!
2. Altman (2002). Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do?
Poor-quality research is a problem in any field. Simply put, it's possible for a poorly-designed study to find anything, no matter how absurd. If I really wanted, I could easily design a study that, while looking legitimate to uninformed non-experts, would conclude that the Rocky mountains are flatter than a random pancake from IHOP. There is even precedent for this.
This is why expertise in experimental design and research methods is so important... both for designing and interpreting studies. Critical appraisal of any research is key, and you can never just trust the author's interpretation of his own work. It's also a large part of why a number of processes (e.g. peer review) are in place and why doctors get so up in arms about irresponsible media reporting.
And this article is available for free from JAMA. Have I yet mentioned that I love open-access literature?
Where to begin? This one article manages to cover about half of what's wrong with modern clinical autism research and with autism research funding priorities. Forget the political issues involved and the tie-ins between genetic research and prenatal testing. Forget the issue of whether a medical model is appropriate for autism or not. Forget even the normocentric bias which pervades most autism research and the question of whether or not it is appropriate to view autism as a disease.
Today, most funding into basic research into autism goes into attempts to understand the underlying biological processes that differentiate autistic and non-autistic individuals. This is a tremendously complicated task, one which has countless problems which I could rant about for hours. The sheer amount of money which this task has already gone into this task (and which it will likely require in the future) is mindboggling... not to mention researcher time and effort, etc.
This doesn't mean that I think that the task is worthless. Basic understanding of biological factors and processes is rarely worthless. There are, however, a phenomenal number of difficulties in taking these (usually incomplete) understandings and doing anything useful with them. At the same time, other approaches (what Simon refers to as focusing on "predictive laws rather than on trying to understand the [biological] why of those laws", p. 2 of the author's manuscript, parenthetical word added) offer far better cost-effectiveness... and neatly avoid a lot of the convolutions in the process which Simon spends the rest of the paper explaining.
Edit (3/21/10): An excellent discussion of some of the factors I'm trying to talk about can be found here. A dissenting -- but still valid -- opinion regarding that specific application can be found here. Many thanks to Tyler Cowen and Michelle Dawson for highlighting these and pointing me in their directions. Additionally, to avoid a misreading of the above: focusing on predictive laws does not avoid the need for translational research; it simply makes the process thereof less convoluted. One example of this would be in finding and using valid and robust surrogate endpoints within studies... but this is a much, much longer discussion.
This paper (the author's manuscript of which is available for free here) is an excellent discussion these problems... albeit in a different context. This context actually represents the paper's largest flaw, one which annoys the heck out of me: Simon is a cancer researcher and the paper was published in a cancer research journal. If, however, we are to understand the issues involved with taking the medical research models applied to cancer and applying them to autism (as Autism Speaks and others repeatedly insist on doing), we must first understand the issues with those models in general -- and they very much have them, even when they're used appropriately. This paper does an excellent job of highlighting those.
Edit: Corrected a spelling error.
At the same time, the average parent knows around as much about how research is conducted and about what study findings really mean as does the average sixth-grader. This combination is very much not a good thing.
Simply put, many of the conclusions parents reach when reading the literature are not anywhere near accurate. Even many of the most basic aspects of research are commonly misunderstood in truly dramatic fashions.
The ideal solution, of course, would be to sit every parent of an autistic child down and give them a series of college-level (undergraduate or postgraduate) classes on the scientific process. Unfortunately, this is pretty spectacularly unrealistic. Frankly, many parents could use classes on critical thinking skills, too, but that's every bit as unrealistic.
As such, I've compiled a "Top Ten" list of papers which cover things that most parents don't get. Of course, like any such list, there are a number of biases operating in how I've constructed this. Perhaps a reader will be able to spot some of these... and, as an exercise for my readers, I've tried to make a few of them as blatantly obvious as possible. Narrowing this down to ten papers was emphatically not easy, and there are a number of papers which almost (but did not quite) make the cut for a variety of reasons. I may blog on a few of them later.
To finish: for the purposes of this list, I've defined "research methods articles" as any peer-reviewed writing dealing primarily with the design, conducting, and interpretation of research.
Edit: Also note that there's usually more than one good article on any of these topics, and I excluded "duplicate" articles. I often had to drop very good articles which deserved to be on this list because of that.
10. Strech & Tilburt (2008). Value judgements in the analysis and synthesis of evidence.
One of the (many) reasons why conflicts of interest are so important when dealing with research is the fact that there is a lot of wiggle-room in experimental design. Scientists routinely make value judgments in designing and interpreting research, and this paper serves to highlight many of the ways in which this impacts the process of research.
Just as a quick illustration: how do my value judgments impact the content of this top 10 list?
9. Rutter (2008). Epidemiological methods to tackle causal questions.
In this paper, Matthew Rutter (who I admittedly have issues with relating to other works) discusses the issue of attempting to determine the cause of something without being able to manipulate it in a lab (or clinical trial, etc.). Of course, in the modern autism world, it's more important to understand how it's possible to establish the reverse -- that something is not the cause of something else -- without an experiment... and that is, admittedly, often far simpler.
8. Lesaffre (2008). Use and misuse of the p-value.
Statistical significance testing is one of the most ubiquitous aspects of the modern scientific process. Unfortunately, it's also the source of many of the problems with it. As scientists haven't been able to find (or settle on) a better alternative, however, it still pops up just about everywhere.
One statistic -- the p-value -- is central to this process. Unfortunately, many people (including scientists) misunderstand just what the p-value is, what it means, and what it represents. Lesaffre's paper discusses this and the issues surrounding it.
7. The PRISMA statement.
One of a number of "reporting standards" documents which standardize scientific reporting in the medical literature, the PRISMA statement deals with systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and specifically with which items of the review's process and methodology most need to be reported.
The other documents of this type (e.g. the CONSORT and STROBE statements) are also very important, but the PRISMA statement deals with ways to document the possibility of biases that effect the process of drawing a conclusion from the entire body of available literature. By contrast, the others deal with the conclusion of single studies.
Of course, since what's important is understanding, most interested parents should read the explanation and elaboration document, not the PRISMA statement itself.
Were I doing a longer list, the CONSORT statement, at least, would be in here. As is, however, I believe that the biases covered by the PRISMA statement to be more important for parents of autistic children to understand... and, frankly, I felt that one major standards document was enough for this list.
6. Manchikanti (2008). Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: Introduction and general considerations.
The concept of evidence-based medicine has revolutionized clinical practice over the past few decades. This article discusses the concept of evidence-based medicine, its history, its tools, and countless other related topics, providing a great introduction to the medical literature... and provides a basic foundation for understanding it.
Best of all, it's available for free.
5. Ioannidis (2008). Perfect study, poor evidence: Interpretation of biases preceding study design.
Even if a study is designed, conducted, analyzed, and reported perfectly, it can still be biased or otherwise flawed in a large number of ways. This paper reviews and discusses this phenomenon, including (but not even close to limited to) such factors as poor scientific relevance, straw man effects, and the importance of the analysis of the geometry of a research field.
4. Ioannidis (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated.
When something is first discovered, researchers' estimates of its importance are generally exaggerated. This article discusses this phenomenon and the reasons for it, painting an unusually frank and readable picture of just why this happens.
3. Ioannidis (2005). Why most published research findings are false.
One of the more annoying aspects of science is the fact that we know that most of our discoveries are simply wrong. The problem, however, is that we don't usually know which ones until far later. This is one of many reasons why replication is so important in the sciences and why the habit of interpreting individual studies, taken in isolation, as "definitive" is really, really problematic. "False positive" findings abound in science -- especially the social and medical sciences -- and often lead armchair scientists or doctors astray.
This paper, one of the most influential papers published in the last decade, discusses this phenomenon and the reasons for it. If you have time to read the responses and the discussion that followed the publication of this article, that is also very much worth the effort of doing. I particularly recommend Mooneshinghe, Khoury, & Jannssens's (2007) essay, Most published research findings are false—But a little replication goes a long way.
The full text is available for free. I really love open-access scientific literature. Long live PLoS!
2. Altman (2002). Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do?
Poor-quality research is a problem in any field. Simply put, it's possible for a poorly-designed study to find anything, no matter how absurd. If I really wanted, I could easily design a study that, while looking legitimate to uninformed non-experts, would conclude that the Rocky mountains are flatter than a random pancake from IHOP. There is even precedent for this.
This is why expertise in experimental design and research methods is so important... both for designing and interpreting studies. Critical appraisal of any research is key, and you can never just trust the author's interpretation of his own work. It's also a large part of why a number of processes (e.g. peer review) are in place and why doctors get so up in arms about irresponsible media reporting.
And this article is available for free from JAMA. Have I yet mentioned that I love open-access literature?
Where to begin? This one article manages to cover about half of what's wrong with modern clinical autism research and with autism research funding priorities. Forget the political issues involved and the tie-ins between genetic research and prenatal testing. Forget the issue of whether a medical model is appropriate for autism or not. Forget even the normocentric bias which pervades most autism research and the question of whether or not it is appropriate to view autism as a disease.
Today, most funding into basic research into autism goes into attempts to understand the underlying biological processes that differentiate autistic and non-autistic individuals. This is a tremendously complicated task, one which has countless problems which I could rant about for hours. The sheer amount of money which this task has already gone into this task (and which it will likely require in the future) is mindboggling... not to mention researcher time and effort, etc.
This doesn't mean that I think that the task is worthless. Basic understanding of biological factors and processes is rarely worthless. There are, however, a phenomenal number of difficulties in taking these (usually incomplete) understandings and doing anything useful with them. At the same time, other approaches (what Simon refers to as focusing on "predictive laws rather than on trying to understand the [biological] why of those laws", p. 2 of the author's manuscript, parenthetical word added) offer far better cost-effectiveness... and neatly avoid a lot of the convolutions in the process which Simon spends the rest of the paper explaining.
Edit (3/21/10): An excellent discussion of some of the factors I'm trying to talk about can be found here. A dissenting -- but still valid -- opinion regarding that specific application can be found here. Many thanks to Tyler Cowen and Michelle Dawson for highlighting these and pointing me in their directions. Additionally, to avoid a misreading of the above: focusing on predictive laws does not avoid the need for translational research; it simply makes the process thereof less convoluted. One example of this would be in finding and using valid and robust surrogate endpoints within studies... but this is a much, much longer discussion.
This paper (the author's manuscript of which is available for free here) is an excellent discussion these problems... albeit in a different context. This context actually represents the paper's largest flaw, one which annoys the heck out of me: Simon is a cancer researcher and the paper was published in a cancer research journal. If, however, we are to understand the issues involved with taking the medical research models applied to cancer and applying them to autism (as Autism Speaks and others repeatedly insist on doing), we must first understand the issues with those models in general -- and they very much have them, even when they're used appropriately. This paper does an excellent job of highlighting those.
Edit: Corrected a spelling error.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
On Science Fiction and Identity, Part One
What is it that makes us who we are?
Really -- it's an important question. Philosophers have been debating this for milennia... in large part because they've realized just how inportant it is. It's not a simple question. It's not an easy question. It's not a question that we have a definitive answer for.
Tackling this question involves grappling with the deepest aspects of philosophy, to struggle with the essence of humanity, and to seek answers that may not even exist.
It's also not a question that science can answer. Sure, science can inform the debate -- I've long since lost count of the number of studies I've seen on issues related to this -- but it's fundamentally a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
Today we have three major groups exploring this issue, all from different angles and all producing different sorts of results. The first two -- philosophers and scientists -- are pretty obvious. The third category -- science fiction authors (some fantasy authors do this, too, but let's not get too deep into the issue of the blur between the genres) -- are a pretty uniquely modern phenomenon, but have been quietly (or, occasionally, not so quietly) exploring a number of complex philosophical issues in the background of our culture for quite a while now. Many of these explorations have to do with issues of identity and humanity.
They've even been doing it in a manner that's a lot more accessable to the "average joe" than most philosophical treatises.
I'm not saying that a Star Trek episode is as important in the grand scheme of things as a major philosophical treatise, mind. I'm just saying that they often explore the same issues, albeit from different angles.
It's rather akin to how the ancient Greek morality plays explored the philosophy of ethics, really.
I'm also not saying that every science fiction story qualifies. Many don't.
The fundamental question explored by science fiction, however, is "What if?" It is from this angle that science fiction authors address the question of what makes us who we are.
While a philosopher explores issues of what makes us who we are, he does so through careful argument and discourse. When a scientist does so, he seeks factual answers and reasons based on emperical evidence. When a science fiction author does so, he sets up a scenario and shows the (hypothetical) consequences.
The products of this sort of exercise vary from beloved classics to pieces of pop culture. They have been known to lead to some pretty interesting (if obscure) philosophical debates between fans... and have a considerably higher "geek appeal" factor than Descartes.
Sorry, Rene, but your work just doesn't have what it takes to be debated by Vulcan-eared Trekkies at a geek convention. Roddenberry has you beat on that count... and no, I don't use "geek" as an insult. I've earned my geek stripes, thank you very much.
And, of course, all of this begs the question -- why am I bringing this up on an autism blog?
Well, I plan to indulge my inner geek when I write about issues of identity and autism. I can't write purely serious science and philosophy pieces all the time, now can I?
Really -- it's an important question. Philosophers have been debating this for milennia... in large part because they've realized just how inportant it is. It's not a simple question. It's not an easy question. It's not a question that we have a definitive answer for.
Tackling this question involves grappling with the deepest aspects of philosophy, to struggle with the essence of humanity, and to seek answers that may not even exist.
It's also not a question that science can answer. Sure, science can inform the debate -- I've long since lost count of the number of studies I've seen on issues related to this -- but it's fundamentally a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
Today we have three major groups exploring this issue, all from different angles and all producing different sorts of results. The first two -- philosophers and scientists -- are pretty obvious. The third category -- science fiction authors (some fantasy authors do this, too, but let's not get too deep into the issue of the blur between the genres) -- are a pretty uniquely modern phenomenon, but have been quietly (or, occasionally, not so quietly) exploring a number of complex philosophical issues in the background of our culture for quite a while now. Many of these explorations have to do with issues of identity and humanity.
They've even been doing it in a manner that's a lot more accessable to the "average joe" than most philosophical treatises.
I'm not saying that a Star Trek episode is as important in the grand scheme of things as a major philosophical treatise, mind. I'm just saying that they often explore the same issues, albeit from different angles.
It's rather akin to how the ancient Greek morality plays explored the philosophy of ethics, really.
I'm also not saying that every science fiction story qualifies. Many don't.
The fundamental question explored by science fiction, however, is "What if?" It is from this angle that science fiction authors address the question of what makes us who we are.
While a philosopher explores issues of what makes us who we are, he does so through careful argument and discourse. When a scientist does so, he seeks factual answers and reasons based on emperical evidence. When a science fiction author does so, he sets up a scenario and shows the (hypothetical) consequences.
The products of this sort of exercise vary from beloved classics to pieces of pop culture. They have been known to lead to some pretty interesting (if obscure) philosophical debates between fans... and have a considerably higher "geek appeal" factor than Descartes.
Sorry, Rene, but your work just doesn't have what it takes to be debated by Vulcan-eared Trekkies at a geek convention. Roddenberry has you beat on that count... and no, I don't use "geek" as an insult. I've earned my geek stripes, thank you very much.
And, of course, all of this begs the question -- why am I bringing this up on an autism blog?
Well, I plan to indulge my inner geek when I write about issues of identity and autism. I can't write purely serious science and philosophy pieces all the time, now can I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
