Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:18, 11 January 2009

Revision as of 22:24, 11 January 2009

Line 844:

I don't mind criticism of [[acupuncture]], or of [[facilitated communication]]. (Indeed, the latter is even more controversial than the former, and the literature sparse but perhaps 5:1 against it; note the "significant minority view". I belong to that camp.)

What I object to is ScienceApologist '''using my minority affiliations to attack me spitefully'''. There is a global history of minorities not being treated very well, and we know all the nasty epithets, like "retards". I have a son whom some have labelled "retarded" (he's actually severely autistic, and very intelligent). I use facilitated communication (FC) with him -- it's a technique of helping steady a users's hand while s/he points or types to communicate -- because without it, his communication would be (even more) severely compromised. Where does SA get off attacking me over this? What does he, a maybe-almost-PhD in a physical science, even know about autism, developmental pediatrics or parenting? He just read an article about FC by a skeptic for skeptics, and spouted a talking point on WP, for one reason: just to slap me down. Is that the editing environment you wanted?

Sidebar: FC is controversial literally a matter of lifeboat ethics: there have been cases where people were falsely accused of sexual abuse via FC. Can you imagine what a nightmare that would be? And there have been cases where disabled people have used FC to correctly disclose that sexual abuse occurred. Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be not to have a means of speaking up and saying you were being abused?