= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on How to tell apart science from pseudo-science in a field you don't know ? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
It could be perceived as such. Given the context however it seems that Alicorn isn't making an additional claim about what most people do and is instead adding labels to the behavior that Eugine did actively advocate (or criticise the deprecation of). Even if those things were never done by anyone the adovcation thereof could still be criticized. (And so any weakness in the argument is of a different kind to 'straw man'.)
For better or worse there are the implied premises here that:
The second two seem straightforward and while using the word 'torture' has its own problems the meaning is at least clear.
This comment does all of the things I was concerned about Alicorn's not doing. The conversation I'd expect to ensue from her comment would be an argument over the definitions of "torture," "incomprehensible bossing" &etc, which wouldn't be explicit so much as the bashing together of "Doing these things to autistics is good" and "Doing these things to autistics is evil." I have good reasons to expect this, because it's what I've seen take place subsequent to such a remark a million times and with no positive outcome in any instance. (Add any amount, to taste, of "You're not a real autistic so you can't remark on the subjective experience of the Less High Functioning" and "People are actually being tortured and killed, so I shouldn't have to be nice to you or explain these things out. Therefore I'll just vaguely antagonize at you until you go away.")
I'll also point out that "doing things that are abhorrent to people for no goddamn reason" doesn't pay attention to the fact that people who do e.g. ABA do believe that what they're doing will improve the quality of life of whoever they're doing it to.
So is your claim that increasing the chances that the child will be able to fit into adult society doesn't count as a good reason?
My claim? The grandparent doesn't make any claims about autism or the optimal development strategy for those with particular symptoms. It describes claims already made and draws conclusions about whether "straw man" can apply.
Doing things that are abhorrent to people for reasons is still usually torture. (Sometimes it might be self-defense, or surgery, or something.) Stopping people from moving around for reasons is still usually restraining. (Sometimes that is self-defense, or protection of your privacy, or something.) The claim that these measures will help as you describe require support, but even if you could demonstrate strong reason, there would be reason to be suspicious of this kind of therapy!
If the kids involved were not autistic, and the torture/restraint were something corresponding to allistics, you would never get approval for human trials. ("I'm stabbing my son with this thumbtack repeatedly for ten to fifteen minutes every day. He has a really low pain tolerance, so this organization I found says that that will make it hard for him to function as an adult - I mean, he'll still have to show up to work if he has something like a broken toe, right? - so they recommend this intervention." "I don't let my daughter out of her room. Ever. It's okay, she has an ensuite bathroom. When she grows up she'll probably have an office job, and she'll just have to get used to not being able to run outside and play or get herself a snack or anything.")
Didn't we just have two threads about this fallacy?
Explain how this is a non-central case?