Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SamuraiScot
I see no reason to assume it hasn't, especially since the perception that autism has increased is not mine alone, but is widespread. There is no need to protect either hypothesis.

The perception is there because it gets a lot of publicity. Whenever something gets a lot of publicity, there is always a perception that it is occurring more often than before it was publicized.

76 posted on 11/10/2011 6:03:50 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom
The perception is there because it gets a lot of publicity.

Sure. Sometimes. And sometimes (as in my own case on this subject), the perception came first. This is a complex phenomenon, maybe several phenomena under a single category, possibly with both genetic predispositions and environmental triggers at work. Plus, sample groups that keep moving geographically and are hard to define rigorously.

But dismissing personal observation is not scientific. It's illogical to say that because publicity can make a phenomenon appear more frequent, whenever a phenomenon appears frequent, it must be as a result of publicity. Gut impressions are actually the source of most hypotheses. The scientific method comes in when you test them. A lot hinges on who does the testing, and how well-designed and honest the tests are.

77 posted on 11/11/2011 10:07:55 PM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson