Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Science
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Science

303

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
303
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Why Science? • A definition: science is the process of establishing cause and effect • Not 100% foolproof • At its best it recognises and addresses the possibility of error and incompleteness • A community of communicating practitioners • The concept of peer-review
  • 2. Smart people can misread cause and effect: • Severe sore throat and cough • Patient (US academic) seen at Beijing hospital • Offered choice of treatments: – Erythromycin – "Chuanbeiye," with the chief ingredients listed as "snake bile, tendril-leafed fritillary bulb, and almond, etc." • Patient chose erythromycin despite assurances from translator that Chuanbeiye always worked for her. • Patient got better, continued to put his faith in antiobiotics over traditional Chinese medicine.
  • 3. What’s wrong with above picture? • Majority of respiratory complaints like that described by the author are viral, not bacteriological • Neither treatment was likely to work • Moral: skeptical scientific minds, with incomplete information, can get it wrong, too.
  • 4. What should we look for? • Instructional techniques and programs that correspond with established understanding of FASD • Assessment of effects that actually measure what is being addressed. • Duration and applicability of effect (not just the result of cramming a bunch of information)
  • 5. What should we look for? (2) • If a program claims to be supported by research, check that research and desired effect match. • If “analog skills” are addressed, look for research that they have direct bearing on disability. – Real analog skill for reading: phonological processing – Unsubstantiated analog skill: eye movement • Program tested by independent research, and replicated.
  • 6. A little more about peer review • Good science assumes possibilities of error, bias, statistical fumbles, contamination of effect, etc. etc. • Findings, even if apparently very compelling, must be subjected to peer review before submitted to media. (e.g. “cold fusion”) • Even with peer review, one study doth not a conclusion make.
  • 7. DO NOT MAKE MAJOR LIFE DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF ONE STUDY!!!!
  • 8. Testimonials • 1. Authorities: – Really smart people: Jarvik – Celebrities: Oprah – Moral Authorities: Floyd Redcrow Westerman (?!) • 2. People just like you… – really? – In what respects?
  • 9. Testimonials: • Consider the logic: • How many testimonials would it take to show effectiveness? – What can you infer from number of testimonial regarding the ratio of successes to failures – What worked? • Can the described effect be compared to that of other approaches? • Consider the single-case phenomenon. – My “argument from Tylenol…”
  • 10. Science is only part of the picture. • What else do you need to think about if the program you’re looking at is supported by legitimate research evidence?
  • 11. Does it really match your child’s needs? • Beware the program that fixes: “Autism, LD, NLD, FASD, and ADHD, and CP.” – How do you know what your child’s problem is? – Assessment (not baseline, but diagnostic) should be independent of organisation offering treatment.
  • 12. IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, … IT PROBABLY IS.

×