Talk:Facilitated communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Facilitated communication article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Welcome to the Facilitated Communication Talk page.

Contents

[edit] Changes to Introduction

I made changes to the last 2 paragraphs of the Introduction to more clearly indicate what the controversies - research and ethical - really are here.

In the second to last paragraph the previous language gave the impression that if, say, 10-25% of FC users were authentic writers, it would provide a basis for practitioners to use it. This is not correct. Even if 15% of FC led to authentic writing, it may not be clinically useful if the harm done to the other 85% were significant - especially if there was not easy way for the practitioner to distinguish authentic from non-authentic writing. A lot more could be said here to explain the concept of clinical validity, but I tried to keep it short and communicate the basic idea as fairly as possible.

In the third to last paragraph the previous language implied that practitioners were in an ethical dilemma essentially because they could not prove that FC never worked. Thus, as long as the possibility existed that at least one Autistic person could benefit from FC, practitioners should somehow feel free - or even obligated - to try it. This of course is not a dilemma for any ethical practitioner. I tried to reframe this to again express more fairly the actual dilemma.--Gogh 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the potential risks or the potential benefits have ever been quantified. That is, the prevalance of false sexual abuse claims isn't known, etc. (though there is one references that estimated it; I'll have to look at the original because the abstract didn't quite make sense). thx belatedly, Jim Butler(talk) 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Naturalistic" vs "Clinical" Settings

In the Research Section you currently have the following sentence: "In the opinions of proponents of the method (Biklen et al, 2005), positive results were generally seen in more naturalistic settings, and negative results in more clinical settings." I have not changed this, since I do not have the cited reference at my fingertips, but do you really mean "clinical" here? From the context it sounds like you mean to contrast the positive findings about FC in "natural" settings with the negative findings about FC typically reported in laboratory or experimental settings. As it reads, if I were forced to find some distinction between "naturalistic" and "clinical" I guess I would go with home uses of FC by parents vs school or hospital based use of FC by professionals. I doubt you intend this distinction however, especially as I am unaware of any evidence suggesting that positive findings are reported more often in schools or hospitals vs at home. I suggest replacing the word "clinical" with something like "experimental". --Gogh 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this and lots of the article needs rewording. The basic issue (as I understand it per peer-reviewed sources) is whether the controls introduced other variables that would confound communication. IOW, people with severe communication impairments aren't necessarily going to be able to perform well under unfamilar conditions. Jim Butler(talk) 09:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Comment

This is my first time taking a careful look at this page. I have read through all of the current Discussion, but not all of the Archives. Even so, I can see this has been a difficult subject. I do recognize an attempt to be fair here, which is a relief given the warfare that goes on. However fairness does not mean not hurting people's feelings, or giving equal weight to all positions. The controversy in FC is not, for the most part, within the scientific literature, and this should be made very clear up front. The controversy is between those who believe professional interventions for individuals with medical or mental disorders should be controlled by the rules of science, and those who believe that, at least in some cases, those rules can and ought to be ignored in order to give individuals every possible chance.

I think what you really need is to link to a separate article on the professional and ethical issues involved in limiting interventions to scientifically based interventions. I also think you want to be real careful in this article, as I suspect it is one of the common topics people will use to judge the objectivity and accuracy of wikipedia.--Gogh 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversy exists also among scientists, not just between scientists and non-scientists. Just go to Pubmed. I don't disagree that some people who advocate FC do so without regard to the scientific method, but that's not true of all proponents, and verifiable sources like Bauman, Biklen etc. have made this clear. (As Biklen said when FC-doubters criticized Syracuse for appointing him as Dean, he's had to get his stuff through peer-review just like everyone else.) See also more recent research on intelligence testing and autism. The position that FC has validity is a significant minority view, not a fringe or pseudoscientific view. I do agree that there may still be some undue weight problems in how the article depicts the controversy. I very much agree with your last sentence, however.
Also, I think it's important that as editors we distinguish between the scientific view that something is not proven and the view that it is disproven. There is disagreement over study design and interpretation of data, not a rejection of "the rules of science". NPOV requires including such arguments. Article does need general cleanup and I will try and do this. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chat cleanup and POV stamp

Can someone clear the chat up. it's a compete mess! Also I've taken the POV stamp off and replaceed it with a clear up stamp. Kjhf 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

removed category:pseudoscience. Truncated edit stummary here[1]. Meant to say that a sig minority of scientists see some validity in FC and say so in peer-reviewed pubs. Biklen, Bauman, etc.; see article. See WP:CG which says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Widely and clearly consider pseudoscience. I see no diference between classifying this the same as AIDS reappraisal. Jefffire 11:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jefffire. I know you're strongly committed to NPOV and are a level-headed editor, so I'm glad to be having this disagreement with you rather than any number of other editors. My response is straightforward: please provide evidence for your claim that FC is "widely and clearly" considered pseudoscience. Not just among skeptical societies, but among scientists, with consensus evident.
I can think of at least three arguments against categorizing FC as pseudoscience on WP, even if it does have some pseudoscientific elements. First, the APA statement does not say FC is pseudoscience in the commonly-accepted sense of the term (something that is misrepresented as being scientific). Second, the APA statement is outdated, with peer-reviewed disagreement transpiring after its 1994 publication. Third, and most importantly, peer-reviewed debate and prominent proponents of FC exist, which establish that their view is a significant scientific minority view, not a fringe view. Unpacking these ideas a bit:
(1) The APA statement says, among other things, that "facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy". That may appear to be in the ballpark of pseudoscience, but there are important criteria for PS that are not met here. Imagine the following scenario. A scientific society publishes a statement saying that astrology is pseudoscientific, and includes the following passage:
  • "The experimental and unproved status of the technique does not preclude continued research on the utility of astrology and related scientific issues. Judicious clinical practice involving use of astrology should be preceded by the use of fully informed consent procedures, including communication of both potential risks and likelihood of benefit."
That would be a little incongruous in the middle of a condemnation of a pseudoscience, right? We don't see biologists speaking of ID in such measured, nuanced terms. They just come right out and say it's BS, incompatible with the scientific method, unfalsifiable, etc. Yet the passage above is exactly what the APA said about FC in 1994. They are indeed saying FC is controversial and unproven, but that's not synonymous with "pseudoscience".
(2) If you read the article carefully, and the peer-reviewed literature it cites, you'll see that scientific debate exists on FC and related issues such as measuring the intelligence of autistic people. The APA statement came out in 1994, but several important papers and textbook citations have appeared since (Weiss et al, 1996; Beukelman and Mirenda, ca. '98; these are cited in the article).
(3) My choice of the word "prominent" to describe some of FC's proponents was not borne of enthusiastic POV-pushing. By any standard, a Nobel Laureate (Arthur Schawlow) or a Harvard neurologist known worldwide for research into differences in the brains of autistic people (Margaret Bauman) are prominent among their peers. Per Jimbo's early statement about NPOV, the existence of prominent proponents of an idea is sufficient to establish that idea as a significant minority view. And in this case, it's a significant view within the scientific community. There are plenty of less notable FC proponents, but there are (or have been: Schawlow died in 1999) at least three world-class ones. Readers deserve to know that disagreement isn't a "fringe" thing in this case.
Given that we have a sig minority sci view, I don't see how inclusion in the category is NPOV. As WP:CG says:
"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
Of course, mention of such criticisms can and should be made in, e.g., List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and fully covered as due weight requires in the body of the article. It just isn't appropriate in WP's category namespace, where it's misleading.
Additionally, my argument is strongly supported by the the last four principles passed by the ArbCom in their recent decision on pseudoscience:
Obvious pseudoscience
15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally considered pseudoscience
16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Questionable science
17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternative theoretical formulations
18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a significant scientific minority view (w/ prominent proponents and peer-reviewed debate) puts FC into one (or perhaps both) of the latter two categories. A majority of scientists may consider FC not valid (or even pseudoscientific), but majority is not the same as consensus, and not sufficient for categorizing as pseudoscience.
Jefffire, you may also wish to read and chime in at recent discussion at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts regarding difference "tiers" of acceptable sources. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 10:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I edited the article in accordance with my comments above, keeping some of Jefffire's improvements[2], and adding some material to address his concerns. Since I too am an NPOV kinda guy, I added List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, since FC is included there, as well of mentioning such criticism in the article body. Still needs a V RS, but OK to have it fact-tagged for awhile. Per the aforesaid list's talk page, I suspect the V RS will be "second tier", i.e. not an Academy of Science or scientific specialist group (which are much more reliable for scientific consensus), but a source such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (less VER, but still appropriate as a sig POV). cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the comparison of AIDS reappraisal with FC is grossly flawed since there is vastly more research on the former than the latter. The only question is by how many orders of magnitude does the number of peer-reviewed articles on HIV/AIDS exceed that on FC: two or three, based on a glance at Pubmed. The fewer scientists examine something, the less likely there is to be consensus. Likewise, compare the weight of views expressed in the respective bodies of literature. AIDS reappraisal represents perhaps a fraction of a percent. FC proponents' views are on the order of at least 10%, and in addition, quite a few articles express an agnostic view, which of course one doesn't see much of with regard to the idea that the HIV virus causes AIDS. If I'm missing something here, please tell me. -- Jim Butler(talk) 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/c/Talk%7EFacilitated_communication_6a46.html"