Content deleted Content added
Wikiman2718 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 30:
::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)
| |||