The image of an eclipse powerfully illustrates this sad reality. The ethical codes of most of the disciplines that treat autism mandate evidence-based practice, yet we see abundant examples of individuals violating their scope of practice.
Many individualsare practicing outside their discipline, failing to share the support or lack of support for the interventions implemented or recommended. Many professional organizations, such as state psychological associations, assume the important task of protecting the discipline from poor or otherwise unethical practices but sometimes lack the awareness or the resources to tackle this to the extent that families of individuals with autism deserve.
Category: Health Published: February 4, This question is rather subjective and depends on what you mean by "harmful". If you mean to ask which pseudo-science concept leads to the most bodily harm to humans, then the winner is definitely vaccine denialism. The safety and effectiveness of vaccines in protecting humans against specific diseases is one of the most experimentally-verified concepts of all time.
Believing that the moon landings were faked may make you out of touch with reality, but this belief does not really harm anyone. In contrast, avoiding vaccines ultimately leads to disease and death. Furthermore, avoiding vaccines not only harms you, it harms your entire community because you spread dangerous contagions once infected. This fact is what makes vaccine denialism so insidious. No matter how trendy, popular, "natural", and attractive vaccine avoidance is made to appear, it does not change the scientific fact that vaccines save lives in a measurable, understandable, direct manner; and that vaccine denialism leads to disease, suffering, and death.
Among all the different kinds of pseudo-science, vaccine denialism stands alone in a separate category because of the ability of viruses and bacteria to spread and mutate. Let's look at what makes vaccine denialism stand in a league of its own among the pseudo-science concepts. Vaccine denialism leads the denialist to fail to protect himself from serious diseases.
Believing that free energy devices actually work will lead you to waste a few dollars on a useless electric gizmo but will not do much else.
Using a magnetic health bracelet may not improve your blood flow, but it also won't hurt you. Believing that distant stars uniquely affect your personal relationships may cause you to make poor relationship decisions, but the belief won't cause you bodily harm. Believing that aliens from another planet have landed their UFO's on earth may lead to some awkward conversations at social events, but it won't cause anybody to get sick or injured.
In contrast, avoiding vaccines ultimately leads to increased infection and bodily damage. Often when educated people meet a friend who believes in some form of pseudo-science, our response is to roll our eyes and change the subject, mumbling to ourselves, "Whatever. He is free to believe this nonsense. Well, setting aside the obvious objections that the slaughtering of turtles might raise on ethical grounds, there are several issues to consider. To begin with, we can incorporate whatever serendipitous discoveries from folk medicine into modern scientific practice, as in the case of the willow bark turned aspirin.
If these explanations are wrong, or unfounded as in the case of vacuous concepts like Qi, then we ought to correct or abandon them. Most importantly, pseudo-medical treatments often do not work, or are even positively harmful. That is precisely what happens worldwide to people who deny the connection between H. Indulging in a bit of pseudoscience in some instances may be relatively innocuous, but the problem is that doing so lowers your defenses against more dangerous delusions that are based on similar confusions and fallacies.
For instance, you may expose yourself and your loved ones to harm because your pseudoscientific proclivities lead you to accept notions that have been scientifically disproved, like the increasingly and worryingly popular idea that vaccines cause autism.
Philosophers nowadays recognize that there is no sharp line dividing sense from nonsense, and moreover that doctrines starting out in one camp may over time evolve into the other. For example, alchemy was a somewhat legitimate science in the times of Newton and Boyle, but it is now firmly pseudoscientific movements in the opposite direction, from full-blown pseudoscience to genuine science, are notably rare.
The efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in treating depressive and anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons. World Psychiatry , 12 2 , — Darnton, R. Mesmerism and the end of the Enlightenment in France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fasce, A. Gelfand, T. Freud and the history of psychoanalysis. New Jersey: The Analytic Press. Hansson, S.
Cutting the Gordian Knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 23 3 , — Herbert, J. Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology.
Clinical Psychology Review , 20 8 , — Hughes, S. Misconceptions about psychological science: A review.
0コメント