Kev just nominated me for a Thinking Blogger award.
The official rules for participation in the Thinking Blogger Awards meme are as follows:
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote.
Ilker Yoldas, the originator of this meme, also enjoins us to “Please, remember to tag blogs with real merits, i.e. relative content, and above all – blogs that really get you thinking!” Apart from feeling a buzz because Kev has nominated me in this category, I also feel obliged to choose carefully. This may be a bit of fun. But it is serious fun. It gives me an excuse to think about the themes that have informed this blog since its inception in November 2005.
- Debunking autism quackery and exposing its exploitation of parents’ fears.
- This is really about exposing bad science and Ben Goldacre’s weekly BadScience column in the Guardian, also published as a blog, does this and so much more. He has taken down the Geiers, Wakefield, and their media friends like Melanie Phillips. http://www.badscience.net/
- Championing real parental concerns for their children because when these concerns are dismissed by mainstream practitioners it drives parents into the hands of the purveyors of autism quackery.
- Sharon is one among many parents who writes honestly and thought provokingly about raising an autistic child. http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/
- Educating the professionals about the reality of autism because up to date knowledge is making existing practise redundant.
- Michelle Dawson is a remarkable autistic adult whose collaborations with Profesor Mottron in Canada and Professor Gernsbacher in the USA have done a lot to forward this aim. http://autismcrisis.blogspot.com
- Arguing for neurodiversity and autism acceptance because they can provide the basis for a positive intervention in the lives of of autistic people.
- Recognizing that within science there are legitimate differences and disputes. We can be on different sides while exercising mutual respect.
- I would recommend a website but I have already exhausted my quota. Maybe next weekend I will find time to blog about this question exclusively. It does seem to me to be of the utmost importance that, as the cultish believers in anti=science sink into obsurity, we successfully engage with the intellectually valid disputes within the life sciences in which we find giants like Pinker against Rose and, if he had not died before his time from cancer, Gould against Dawkins. Arguments about genetic determinism and autopoeisis go to the heart of the disputes within the autism community about the consequences of seeking a cure versus the potential benefits of respect for the condition of autism.