Page semi-protected

Talk:Causes of autism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Disability (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Causes of autism is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated High-importance)
WikiProject icon Causes of autism is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Gastrointestinal section and undue weight

I am curious as to who flagged the "gastrointestinal connection" section as lending undue weight to certain ideas. Certainly it doesn't say that autistic kids are more likely to have GI symptoms, since there is insufficient evidence that this is true. It also doesn't say that secretin is an effective treatment for autism, because, of course, this has been completely disproven. So what viewpoint is being lent undue weight in that section? Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Replace Theory with hypothesis in the list of proposed explanation for autism?

Hi, there is some confusion in the article by using the word theory. One common meaning is a hunch for cause and effect, an idea some one has had in the shower or the other more precise meaning is a scientific model, which is a group of ideas that has systematically (scientific method) shown to explain data, be predictive and be falsifiable such as climate change or evolution. I think the word theory should be replaced with hypothesis in the list of proposed explanation for autism.

Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Maybe change "According to the theory, exposure to these opiate compounds in young children..." to "According to the hypothesis, exposure to these opiate compounds in young children..."

This would stop ambiguity and also give more credibility to the wiki. Should I change it? I'm pretty new to doing this btw.

Quote ratinoalwiki:

Essentially, the following five steps make up the scientific method:

  * Observe - Look at the world and find a result that seems curious. As Isaac Asimov put it, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'Hmm... that's funny...'"
   * Hypothesize - Come up with an explanation.
  * Predict - The most important part of a hypothesis or theory is its ability to make predictions about result that have yet to be observed. 

These predictions should be falsifiable and specific.

  * Experiment - Compare the predictions with new[3] empirical evidence (usually experimental evidence, often supported by mathematics). 

This step is the reason why a hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable – if you can't prove it wrong, you can't really prove it right. Information from these predictions can lead to a refinement of the hypothesis.

  * Reproduce - ensure the result is a true reflection of reality by verifying it with others.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Mitochondria

The latest bombshell in the theory that autism is a genetic disorder is here. Children with autism experience deficits in a type of immune cell that protects the body from infection. Called granulocytes, the cells exhibit one-third the capacity to fight infection and protect the body from invasion compared with the same cells in children who are developing normally. If true this is a giant step far, far away from all of the other mainstream theories about mercury and lead exposure. But if it's true that children with autism have weakened mitochondria in their white blood cells, what is the cause of that? It obviously can't be passed down 100% through genes. And if true, why are people with autism not far more susceptible to all sorts of diseases? Is this weakness only expressed during the earliest stages of life, or even only within the womb? A further complication is that this great new study is drawing its conclusions from a sample size of ten, therefore more work needs to be done. Soap 00:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Separate hypothesis by; untested, inconclusive, tested and not correlation found etc?

Wouldn't it be less confusing if the different hypothesis were separated on sections for the associated results, if any, of studies done on it, if any? --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be renamed "Proposed causes of autism"

This really needs to be moved to Proposed causes of autism. The title is very misleading. People arrive here and automatically assume that these are all causes. Not everyone actually reads the real content. They see the headings and get the wrong impression. The title should alert them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a problem with the title; that's a problem with the content. That is, the article is a dumping ground that should be cleaned up, but the title is correct. Adding "proposed" would just make the problem worse, introducing speculation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, much of the current content is speculation using RS, but not always MEDRS. Are you proposing we only include proven causes, which is what the current title implies? Say more. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I went through this article once and made sure everything in here was a secondary review. I can't speak to the state of the writing, since I was absent from Wikipedia for many months. The content should reflect the sources, and at one point, the sources all complied with WP:MEDRS-- at a quick glance, I don't see primary sources or non-MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, User:SandyGeorgia, let's lay that aspect aside for the time being and focus on the discrepancy between the title and the content. The title suggests that these are all actual causes of autism, but they are only proposed causes. We need to harmonize this. If you consider the content to be properly sourced, then it's the title, not the content, which needs changing. That's a very simple solution. We have many articles of this type, and they are good encyclopedic content. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The title is fine, IMO; I don't see the problem you allege. Introducing "Proposed" will create a magnet for primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want the article to use primary sources for biomedical claims anymore than you do, which is why I made that one deletion, but apparently the preliminary nature of that reference was no problem for you ("A 2008 preliminary case-control study based on a parent survey" is an awfully weak and totally non-MEDRS source), so I'm choosing to ignore that issue for now.
The content is currently about proposed causes, and we do, as required, use the word "proposed" several times in the lead, because we must describe the content accurately. The problem is that the title implies that the content is about actual proven causes of autism, when most are only proposed causes. We could arrange the content into groups of "proposed" and "proven" causes. That would improve things, and then we wouldn't need to change the title.
My main concern now is the total and gross discrepancy between the content and the title. We can't allow such a situation, and I don't understand why you defend it, or is your point that you don't see any discrepancy? Please try to explain your position with other words so I can understand why we're not understanding each other. I don't understand your reasoning. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Old reviews now misleading or dis-proven

Is it possible to put a warning tag at the top of this article that warns of it's dated, incorrect, or misleading text? Terrible introduction! Just scanned the body, and it's better though.32cllou (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you believe, based on recent publications, that genetics are no longer a factor in autism, but they are. Please stop trying to eliminate genetics from autism articles. Yes, some of the reviews here are old, but that information is still accurate. Also, as far as I know, everything in this article is sourced to a secondary review; it would be helpful if you would discuss your edits before making them, as you don't yet seem to have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)