Scientific presentations unnecessarily ‘dumbed down'

Mike, I decided to start a new thread for this one.

Mike, your statement from the “Kind of an odd question” thread.

SheikBen wrote:……….. then the general presentation given by science is unnecessarily "dumbed down."

Mike, the following is an example of when it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to “dumb down” the presentation …….. if the presenters wish to attract and retain believers and/or supporters of their “junk science”.

Please note my “highlighted” parts relative to our other discussion. I will use “red” for the BS, …… and “green” for important things to note.

And Michael, as you read the following, it is of utmost importance that you keep associating this statement ....... "In the past 10-15 years, cases of autism have risen 172 percent" ...... with all "red" statements about genes, mutations, etc.

Researchers have discovered five new genetic defects that are linked to autism and that appear to share a common function: They’re associated with learning, and are part of a network that allows a child’s brain to build new connections in response to experience [Web MD].

Symptoms of autism typically emerge during the first five years of life — a period when a child normally picks up language, social skills and many other new abilities. Scientists call this kind of growth “experience-dependent learning,” and researchers know that it is associated with enormous changes in brain circuitry. At least 300 genes switch on and off to regulate experience-dependent learning [Time]. Researchers say that the newly identified genes, as well as others already linked to autism, may fail to turn on during this crucial developmental stage, preventing children from learning those social skills and abilities.

The study, published in the journal Science [subscription required], found that many of the mutations did not result in missing or damaged genes, but simply turned them off [Reuters]. This gives researchers a promising new avenue to explore in the quest for an effective autism treatment. “That gives us the potential, in the long run, to develop therapies that may be able to reactivate those genes that are silent,” said [lead researcher Christopher] Walsh [ABC News].

The findings jibe with what some clinicians see in their offices. Clinician Gary Goldstein treats his young patients with hours of therapy each day to reinforce social behavior, and says this study shows why such laborious treatment is effective. “I was excited by this paper; it shows why this could possibly work, why the early intervention works,” he said. “It’s because the genes that are underlying autism are capable of being turned back on” [ABC News]. Still better, however, would be a medical treatment that turned the genes back on.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/07/11/autism-linked-to-genes-that-govern-learning/

Mike, instead of me explaining all of my critiques in the above, .....if you have questions about said, ...... just post them one at a time ...... and I will reply with my thoughts on said.

cheers



.

"the newly identified genes, as well as others already linked to autism, may fail to turn on during this crucial developmental stage, preventing children from learning those social skills and abilities."--in red from Sam

Let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the author is merely "CYA"ing by using the word "may" and therefore hedging bets?

SheikBen wrote:"the newly identified genes, as well as others already linked to autism, may fail to turn on during this crucial developmental stage, preventing children from learning those social skills and abilities."--in red from Sam

Let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the author is merely "CYA"ing by using the word "may" and therefore hedging bets?

Absolutely, Michael, absolutely.

If they do not know whether or not it "fails to turn on", ....... how can they possibly "link it" to autism?

Their statement is equivalent to my stating: "this is a newly identified electrical switch for the lighting in the garage, which may fail to turn "OFF", thus the garage lights are always "ON".

The author could claim that 10,000 newly identified genes are linked to autism ....... and you can't prove his statement is false ....... unless you can prove they did "fail to turn on during the crucial developmental stage".

The other day I read that ..... "less than a dozen genes have been linked to autism".

"DUH", how many is less than a dozen?

ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NONE ..... is less than a dozen, ..... right.

Mike, if genes "fail to turn on"...... it is because they are not being "stimulated" to "turn on" ....... and not because there is something wrong with the genes themselves.

Now some researchers are starting to realize that "lack of stimulation" is the root cause of autism ....... and I guarantee you they will have a "real fight" on their hands in trying to get parents, psychiatrists, drug companies, LD Teachers, etc. to accept "the truth".

Mike, as confirmation of said, see my new post under Local News titled .... "The Root Cause of Autism".

Next question please.
.

Am I correct that at UCLA there is a program for kids with autism that has had a measure of success?

Again admitting ignorance, I would not be at all surprised if you were right about lack of stimulation, rather than genetics, is to blame for the rise in autism. It's going up and no one knows why--the American television/internet style of parenting and two parent workers is "ruled out" I imagine not because it has been tested but because no one wants it to be true.

SheikBen wrote:if you were right about lack of stimulation, rather than genetics, is to blame for the rise in autism.

Mike, how can one blame genetics if said EXPONENTIAL increase (1 out of every 167 children) only occurred within the past 15 years?

That is only one (1) generation of children ..... of all ethnic and racial backgrounds ... from all over the US.

Which means that it is only that generation ...... that has the mutant genes that cause autism.

And it would have had to be a "supernatural event" to cause such a mutation in such a diverse and unrelated group of people.

Which ain't possible, .... let alone probable.

Therefore the cause must be environmental and the most likely suspect is "nurturing". And that is because that would be a "common thread" that ties such a diverse and unrelated group of people all together.

Except for that dastardly one, ........ Global Warming.



.

Careful, Sam, or you might just get a government grant or something from the Ford Foundation to prove that it's global warming and not poor parenting!

I think global warming and the blaming of autism on genetics are similar. They are both ways that underproductive or lazy scientists are able to make pronouncements that are as of yet untestable and enjoy public support.

Mike, here is one for you to consider. You remember me stating ..... "that would be a "common thread" that ties such a diverse and unrelated group of people all together"? ......... You will note said "autistic connection" in the following.

Background TV harms tots’ attention spans

Having a television on during play time can harm development, study finds

NEW YORK - Having the television on in the background while pre-schoolers play with their toys disrupts their efforts to sustain attention, even when they don’t pay much attention to it, and may harm their development, researchers report in current issue the journal Child Development.

Pediatricians recommend no TV for children under age 2, yet studies show that three quarters of very young children in America live in homes where the TV is on most of the time, notes the research team led by Dr. Marie Evans Schmidt of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston.

In a controlled setting, the researchers observed 50 children, who were 12-, 24- and 36-months old, play with a variety of age-appropriate toys for one hour. For half of the hour, a television was on in the room, showing an episode of the adult game show Jeopardy! with commercials. During the other half hour, the TV was turned off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25691604/

.

Let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the author is merely "CYA"ing by using the word "may" and therefore hedging bets?

That is being honest. Most scientists almost always allow for error in their conclusions. The people that quote them may not, however.

For instance, I "know" that Sam is a curmudgeon. I could, however, be wrong.

To be honest, both to myself and the world, I should say something like, "I think it highly likely that Sam is a curmudgeon."

I would then present my evidence and leave people to draw their own conclusions.

People that speak in absolutes are frequently found to be in error.

I think global warming and the blaming of autism on genetics are similar. They are both ways that underproductive or lazy scientists are able to make pronouncements that are as of yet untestable and enjoy public support.

Sounds just like "intelligent design".

TerryRC wrote:
Let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the author is merely "CYA"ing by using the word "may" and therefore hedging bets?

That is being honest. Most scientists almost always allow for error in their conclusions. The people that quote them may not, however.

For instance, I "know" that Sam is a curmudgeon. I could, however, be wrong.

To be honest, both to myself and the world, I should say something like, "I think it highly likely that Sam is a curmudgeon."

"Yes", Terry, we can all believe that.

And likewise for about 98% of everyone on these Forums that you respond with a Post to.

And that is because they all "know better" than what you attempt to convince them of ....... and thus you are constantly forced to employ a futile attempt at CYA'ing by labeling everyone that disagrees with you as:

A cantankerous person; an ill-tempered and disagreeable person

TRC, you are like Sherman, who will not and/or is incapable of defending his "position" 95% of the time, so to CYA your only option is to attempt to defame your opponent in the eyes of any observers.

So go for it Terry, ....... tell everyone that "Sam is a beer-drinking non-church-going curmudgeon .... and therefore they shouldn't believe anything he says".



.

TerryRC wrote:
Let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the author is merely "CYA"ing by using the word "may" and therefore hedging bets?

That is being honest. Most scientists almost always allow for error in their conclusions. The people that quote them may not, however.

For instance, I "know" that Sam is a curmudgeon. I could, however, be wrong.

To be honest, both to myself and the world, I should say something like, "I think it highly likely that Sam is a curmudgeon."

I would then present my evidence and leave people to draw their own conclusions.

People that speak in absolutes are frequently found to be in error.

So you allow for the possibility of flaws in present evolutionary theory? Your great disdain for intelligent design proponents and any arguments that they have is indicative of a feeling of certainty on your part, complete with intolerance of competing ideas, even when they come from people not fundamentalist Christians (ie Spetner and Behe).

"May" and "highly likely" are not synonymous terms, Terry. The latter is a bit riskier, though honest, than the former. I may be winning the upcoming tennis tournament, but it is not highly likely. If I say it is "highly likely," I open myself up to the possibility that my methods and conclusions were wrong. If I say "may," well, I only said it was possible in the first place.

Incidentally, Terry, what do you think of Sam's theory of TV being to blame for the rise in autism?

So you allow for the possibility of flaws in present evolutionary theory? Your great disdain for intelligent design proponents and any arguments that they have is indicative of a feeling of certainty on your part, complete with intolerance of competing ideas, even when they come from people not fundamentalist Christians (ie Spetner and Behe).

I allow for the possibility of flaws in the mechanisms behind the theory.

As to evolution, itself, that it occurs and has occurred has been amply demonstrated.

Regardless, scientists, even the best ones, rarely speak in absolutes, except, perhaps, when disproving a relationship.

Behe, while not, perhaps, a fundamentalist, can't get away from the fact that ID depends on a "supernatural designer", taking it out of the realm of science.

I don't think TV is the cause of autism. TV has been background noise in houses since the late '50's.

I'd think we would have seen the rise sooner if the two were correlated.

TRC, you are like Sherman, who will not and/or is incapable of defending his "position" 95% of the time, so to CYA your only option is to attempt to defame your opponent in the eyes of any observers.

Whatever, Sam. You have belittled my education. You have insulted my work ethic. You have questioned my objectivity

And I'm the defamer...

Regardless, I make my case (or at least refute your arguments) most of the time. That is what angers you. That and the fact that I don't put your anecdotal evidence on a pedestal over actual studies.

Ah. I'm done defending myself.

It is only "junk science" if the conclusions are something you want to disagree with, eh, Sammy?

TerryRC wrote:So you allow for the possibility of flaws in present evolutionary theory? Your great disdain for intelligent design proponents and any arguments that they have is indicative of a feeling of certainty on your part, complete with intolerance of competing ideas, even when they come from people not fundamentalist Christians (ie Spetner and Behe).

I allow for the possibility of flaws in the mechanisms behind the theory.

As to evolution, itself, that it occurs and has occurred has been amply demonstrated.

Regardless, scientists, even the best ones, rarely speak in absolutes, except, perhaps, when disproving a relationship.

Behe, while not, perhaps, a fundamentalist, can't get away from the fact that ID depends on a "supernatural designer", taking it out of the realm of science.

I don't think TV is the cause of autism. TV has been background noise in houses since the late '50's.

I'd think we would have seen the rise sooner if the two were correlated.

TV has been around since then but would you deny that in the past 20 years or so it has become ever more the omnipresent figure in the house? I think the idea is that it is the amount rather than the existence of television that makes the issue.

TerryRC wrote:I think global warming and the blaming of autism on genetics are similar. They are both ways that underproductive or lazy scientists are able to make pronouncements that are as of yet untestable and enjoy public support.

Sounds just like "intelligent design".

I don't think you treat intelligent design fairly. Some say the inference to the best explanation is there was a designer, and some say that it isn't. If you want to say that it's out of the realm of science, then fine, but do you have equal disdain then for the Daniel Dennett's and Richard Dawkins of the world?

TV has been around since then but would you deny that in the past 20 years or so it has become ever more the omnipresent figure in the house? I think the idea is that it is the amount rather than the existence of television that makes the issue.

Busy moms have been sitting their kids in front of the tube since its invention.

I agree there is more use of computer monitors and game consoles, but that is in older kids, not the <5yr. group that Sam's article focuses on.

I don't think you treat intelligent design fairly. Some say the inference to the best explanation is there was a designer, and some say that it isn't. If you want to say that it's out of the realm of science, then fine, but do you have equal disdain then for the Daniel Dennett's and Richard Dawkins of the world?

I have likely read more about ID than you have. Then again, I may be wrong.

Right or wrong, ID can't offer any insight into why we are the way we are (and everything else, for that matter) except for "we were made that way".

End of argument. What part of that is scientific and testable?

I think I treat ID very fairly, thanks.

By dismissing it out of hand?

I go back to my question about Dawkins and Dennett.

If you are saying that ID is not testable or falsifiable, and therefore not within the realm of science, then this is well and good, provided that you also reject materialism in the same way (it's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence).

If you are saying that ID is not testable or falsifiable, and therefore not within the realm of science, then this is well and good, provided that you also reject materialism in the same way (it's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence).

You are not making sense, Sheik.

If I have read the research and found it to not be science, how have I dismissed it "out of hand".

If I can't test it, I just don't care about it as science. ID may be fine as a philosophy or a religion.

It's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence.

Intelligence can be measured in a number of ways. Evolution can be tested in a number of ways (and has been and has never been disproven...).

You are still comparing apples and rocks, Sheik.

TerryRC wrote:
TV has been around since then but would you deny that in the past 20 years or so it has become ever more the omnipresent figure in the house? I think the idea is that it is the amount rather than the existence of television that makes the issue.

Busy moms have been sitting their kids in front of the tube since its invention.

HORSEPUCKY

Apparently you think the Cartoon Network was the first ever TV channel to be broadcast on the public airways.



.

Sam,

I think mothers have been allowing very young children to watch tv for a very long time.

I'll never forget my mother telling me when Richard was TWO years old I should be turning the TV on for him so he would watch Sesame Street & Mr. Rogers while I did housework etc. She asked me, "Why doesn't he watch TV like all the other two year olds?"

PBS has been providing television geared towards very young children since I was very young and I'm 44. How long was Capt. Kangaroo on?

Sesame Street first aired in a test market in July 1969.

The first broadcast of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was on the National Educational Television network on February 19, 1968.

And don't forget Steph, both those programs were "interactive" with the children that were watching them. And that is why the children loved them and they were educational.

.

Apparently you think the Cartoon Network was the first ever TV channel to be broadcast on the public airways.

Why would you say that? What statement did I make to make you even think that?

Moms didn't set their kids down in front of Sesame St. or the Electric Company or reruns of Leave it to Beaver?

You are just being an ass, Sam.

Or Romper Room or Capt Kangaroo who was Clarabell the clown before that. There were the Little Rascals and Mickey Mouse Club and Mighty Mouse and Popeye. The Flintstones and Scooby Doo and a show about an orphaned white lion cub named Kimba were our favorites when I was little. Kids have been watching TV for a very long time.

Sam, I agree kids are watching more tv than when I was a child and now they've got all those damn video games. I'm sure it's having an impact, but very young children are being diagnosed with autism. Maybe it has more to do with kids being in daycare for 40+ hours a week from age 6 weeks. How much stimulation can those daycare workers be providing infants and toddlers? I'm sure that has a huge impact on kids.

Why are the mothers getting all the blame when most of them return to the workforce pdq these days? My friend's daughter returned to work when her son was only 4 weeks old! My sister-in-law will return to work when my niece is 13 weeks old.......better, but still far too soon to be plunked in daycare.