978-1572305441

Sally, Ann, and Danny 127
The problem is that the distinction between junk science, or “pseudoscience”
(or even worse, movie-of-the-week science), and evidencebased
science is often subtle, arising as it does out of the dual nature of
scientific activity. At first the scientist conducts an experiment or sets
out to collect information by reducing complex systems into simpler
ones. The scientific method is essentially a reductionistic attempt to
collect evidence that is as free of bias as possible. In a good experiment,
similar results are found by other scientists doing similar work with
similar populations and instruments. The more the evidence from one
investigation fits in with other pieces of evidence and with other discourses,
the more true it is. But the scientist recognizes that the reduction
to simpler models leads inevitably to error. Error is an essential part
of the world and can never be eliminated entirely. That is why certainty
is never possible. The second activity is just as important and consists of
interpreting those facts or findings. The disparate findings have to be
brought together into a story that makes sense in terms of what we
already know. Scientists build models of the biological systems under
investigation. These models are undeniably situated in a particular context,
embedded in a particular culture and language. That context will
inevitably influence how the story is told. It’s impossible to understand
the world outside of language. The essential difference between evidence-based
science and junk science is the balance between empirical
findings and interpretation. Simply put, junk science is more interpretation
and storytelling than the evidence warrants. When the story involves
a medical doctor valiantly trying to persuade the military–industrial–medical
complex that the cure for autism is around the corner if
only people would listen and wouldn’t let their vested interests interfere,
then the story becomes movie-of-the-week science.
But lest we become too self-satisfied with accepted forms of wisdom
and reject dismissively and arrogantly these alternative theories,
it’s important to remind ourselves that the first theory of autism espoused
by the medical establishment was that parents cause autism in
their children. In his original paper, Kanner noted that the parents of
the eleven children he described very often showed somewhat unusual
behavior themselves; they could be obsessive, aloof, hard driving, or
artistic, or had poor social skills. It’s interesting to note that many of
these individuals were psychiatrists or psychologists, though Kanner,
who was otherwise so astute, missed the connection between occupation
and unusual, rigid personalities! Kanner wondered whether the
similarity in social impairment reflected a genetic contribution to the