Dave B wrote:
Got [roof of that, Pants?
That one claim, unsubstantiated, is the stopper there - not worth reading further if it rests on that premise.
a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by great difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts.
Oh, sorry, forgot that you are immune to facts.
Since most small children go through a selfish period (like from birth onwards for some!) one might assume almost all kids are liable to a diagnosis of that condition according to your ideas. Haven't noticed that this is the case.
You want proof from science? I'm damned sure if I looked for it I could find it. But I'm just as sure that if I wanted to find proof to the contrary, I would also find it. If there's one group that has proved me right, there will be another competing with that group which will have come up with contrary evidence. And what is right today, what sciebntists agree upin today, will be the opposite of what they agree upon tomorrow. One of the most recent gems I heard (Harry Collins, Professor of Social Sciences at Cardiff University) is that scientists should decide the value of their theories democratically (entirely predictable in view of the way philosophy has gone). Yes, they should put their theories to the puiblic vote in order to decide which should be the winner, which should become the accepted orthodoxy. I mean, this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous! This smacks of Kafka or of Monty Python. How, how
, in this day and age, can anyone
still cling to scinece as their lifeboat in the stormy waters of life?
No, Dave, sooner or later you're going to have to grasp the sad thruth that there is no one you can rely upon but yourself, that you are actually going to have to get off your arse and do the hard work yourself. You are actually going to have to bestir those little brain cells and see if they can still remember how to think.
I wonder, if I was offering an effortless pill instead of 17 years hard slog, would you jump at the chance, would you be considerably more receptive instead of demanding proof and evidence at every turn.
As to your remark about children, ignoramus: I am surprised you do not know, surprised you did not find it in volume 5634, page 47298, para. 53, of the Journal of Psychological Gems that more than 99% of the population of the UK suffers from some degree of autism. It really is very dangerous of you to be so careless; goodness knows what wisdoms you are missing out on, wisdoms that would do your health inestimable benefit, by being so careless in your keeping up to date with the latest and best scientific findings. (FYI: joke. Irony. But nevertheless the statistic quoted is genuine.)