Talk:Rapid prompting method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:10, 31 July 2019

Latest revision as of 10:59, 24 February 2024

(16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Skepticismbanner shell|class=C|importance1=Low}}

{{WikiProject Autism|class=C|importance=MediumPsychology}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Mid}}

}}

== RPM as its own page instead of redirect to FC ==

Line 22 ⟶ 26:

I also understand that several articles have been removed from Wikipedia because they were written by nonverbal autistic individuals who were trained with this method. I think that kind of blatant assumption that these articles from nonverbal autistic writers are a lie based on faulty studies done 19 years ago is a dangerous case of biased censorship on the part of Wikipedia editors. I would say if this has actually occurred that Wikipedia has a responsibility to replace these submissions based on the faultiness of the logic this article seems to espouse.

[[User:Chrisglasater|Chrisglasater]] ([[User talk:Chrisglasater|talk]]) 13:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:Please back up --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 14:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

:Please back up

:Are you aware of any cases where the autistic person can type correct answers on a qwerty keyboard without any prompting? [[User:MainePatriot|MainePatriot]] ([[User talk:MainePatriot|talk]]) 23:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

::How should a person who needs prompting to initiate many purposeful actions in their daily life use a qwerty keyboard completely without any prompting? [[User:Kjdlr|Kjdlr]] ([[User talk:Kjdlr|talk]]) 09:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

==Personal Observations==

I dusted off my Wikipedia account to add that while I am hardly an expert, I have known individuals that have used RPM to communicate, and it is amazing to see the communication taking place. I understand that the system may be considered "unscientific" but the results I have seen - with my own eyes - are very real, and that this article should be recast in a more positive (or at least open-minded) light.

[[User:Rickthegeek|Rickthegeek]] ([[User talk:Rickthegeek|talk]]) 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

:Because of your personal experiences with your own eyes - you think we should overturn science? Maybe you should read the RPM and FC page fully first. I've heard this argument before, some fan of a psychic says they have seen readings that were so spot on that "there was NO WAY the psychic could have know" and so therefore we should "go easy" on the psychic. Or "my friend's son got sick after a vaccination, therefore we should change the page for vaccines". Wikipedia does not work that way, we can't rely on "personal experience" and "what happens before your eyes". When RPM is tested by science under controlled conditions (just like we would expect with any new medical procedure) then this is published in a reliable source then Wikipedia can report the results on the Wikipedia article. That's how it works here. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 16:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

::Sgerbic, with respect, while personal observations are rightfully inadmissible as Wikipedia citations, it does not "overturn science" to use testimonial evidence (externally sourced, properly cited) in the absence of scientific studies. You will find that while outlets such as Spectrum [https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/analysis-finds-no-evidence-for-popular-autism-communication-method/ emphasize doubt], the [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-019-00175-w scholarly work] behind this writing fails to reach any conclusion and stresses the need for more studies. It is clear from the sources that the current ''scientific'' status of RPM is that of a hypothesis: neither debunked nor confirmed. --[[Special:Contributions/73.13.242.253|73.13.242.253]] ([[User talk:73.13.242.253|talk]]) 02:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

::: The only reason it's not debunked is because its practitioners refuse to let scientists study it. They argue that allowing scientific inquiry would "deprive people of their right to communicate", which in this case is a euphemism for "prove it doesn't work". --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 03:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:::: What are you talking about? This has been totally discredited. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

::::: The only review that has ever been published called it pseudoscience based on a pseudoscience checklist, but its practitioners refuse let scientists run tests of authorship. This puts us in the position of being able to label RPM as pseudoscience even though it has never been studied in legitimate scientific experiments. --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 22:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

::::::A methodological or theoretical critique such as this does not yield a conclusion one way or another as to whether the technique works. There is an important distinction between practices which have been scientifically demonstrated not to work, e.g., [[acupuncture]], and practices which simply lack scientifically acceptable evidence. The maneuvering or noncompliance of advocates or opponents may raise questions, but it does not raise scientific answers. The best indications available right now are nonscientific testimonials, both for and against. --[[Special:Contributions/73.13.242.253|73.13.242.253]] ([[User talk:73.13.242.253|talk]]) 22:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

::::::: You neglect to account for the fact that this technique purports to allow people who can’t speak or sign or even read to write novels. The reviewers were right to call it pseudoscience. In fact, fringe guidelines allow any clearly impossible claim to be labeled as pseudoscience even in the absence of scientific research. —[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 22:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

::::::::There is nothing inherently impossible in the idea that a person whose sensorimotor difficulties prevent speech or sophisticated signing may still cognitively understand spelling, and may muster the control to thrust a finger at a chosen letter. It's puzzling to me that this would be dismissed as an impossibility. --[[Special:Contributions/73.13.242.253|73.13.242.253]] ([[User talk:73.13.242.253|talk]]) 22:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: The problem is not motor control. The problem is lack of ability to acquire language. Also, never having been taught how to read or write. --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 22:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that we are just supposed to "assume competence" with no evidence. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 02:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)