Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

The ontology of Autism

Page 2 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

29 Nov 2014, 11:02 pm

Adamantium wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
If you are not diagnosed with autism, then you may be suspected of having autism, which means that you may or may not have autism, which means that you don't have autism, but instead, that you may or may not have autism.


If you are not diagnosed with autism, then you are not diagnosed with autism. There are both autistic and non autistic people in this category.

If you are diagnosed with autism, then you are diagnosed with autism. There are both autistic and non autistic people in this category.

Among those who are not diagnosed but believe that they are autistic, some will identify themselves as autistic and some of these will be correct and some will be incorrect.

I agree with you that the self identification is not a formal diagnosis and is less likely to be accurate.

But the underlying neurology of a person doesn't change because there is or is not a formal diagnosis. Nor can a formal diagnosis be said to be infallible.


Since I consider self-diagnosis invalid, I consider a person to have autism only if diagnosed by a professional.
Before a person is diagnosed, they may have autism.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1026
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

29 Nov 2014, 11:12 pm

btbnnyr wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
btbnnyr wrote:
If you are not diagnosed with autism, then you may be suspected of having autism, which means that you may or may not have autism, which means that you don't have autism, but instead, that you may or may not have autism.


If you are not diagnosed with autism, then you are not diagnosed with autism. There are both autistic and non autistic people in this category.

If you are diagnosed with autism, then you are diagnosed with autism. There are both autistic and non autistic people in this category.

Among those who are not diagnosed but believe that they are autistic, some will identify themselves as autistic and some of these will be correct and some will be incorrect.

I agree with you that the self identification is not a formal diagnosis and is less likely to be accurate.

But the underlying neurology of a person doesn't change because there is or is not a formal diagnosis. Nor can a formal diagnosis be said to be infallible.


Since I consider self-diagnosis invalid, I consider a person to have autism only if diagnosed by a professional.
Before a person is diagnosed, they may have autism.


"They may have autism" is right. The way it was put in the other thread was they positively do not have autism which is absurd. They have not been positively identified as having autism is not at all the same thing as they have been positively identified as not having autism, which seemed to be the statement in the deleted thread. \a

The thing that disturbed me was the suggestion that an unknown is the same thing as negative. That is every bit as wrong as claiming that an unknown is a positive.



Last edited by Adamantium on 29 Nov 2014, 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Nov 2014, 11:12 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

If they had never gotten the diagnosis, then they would not have autism, but instead, they can suspect that they have autism, or that they may or may not have autism, e.g. if they suspect that they were misdiagnosed.


Yes they would, not having it recognized would not negate it being there in the first place if it is...people can suspect and actually be on the spectrum and people can suspect and not actually be on the spectrum. The diagnoses does not make what is so.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Nov 2014, 11:14 pm

btbnnyr wrote:
If you are not diagnosed with autism, then you may be suspected of having autism, which means that you may or may not have autism, which means that you don't have autism, but instead, that you may or may not have autism.


No it means you may or may not have it, not that you for sure don't...


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Nov 2014, 11:17 pm

If a tree falls and no one hears it does it still make a sound?

That is what this thread reminds me of...if someone is born autistic and no one diagnoses then they just magically aren't autistic?

I guess when I was 24 I became autistic, but as a child I wasn't hence why to get a diagnoses I had to include details about difficulties I remembered from that time. :roll:


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

29 Nov 2014, 11:18 pm

Adamantium wrote:
You cannot be certain even after a medical diagnosis is complete.
Which, by definition, demands the necessity of objectivity.



Adamantium wrote:
You can be more confident. You may not find it productive to doubt the diagnosis, but the possibility of misdiagnosis means that you cannot be certain.
There is always the possibility of misdiagnosis. At present - in the USA - the possibility of this is c.5%.

Which means your medical diagnosis has c.95% accuracy.

The medical community is always striving to minimise the probability of misdiagnosis.

The individual cannot know how to diagnose aside from the material created by the medical community.

A self-diagnosis is, in metaphorical terms, a painting of a painting of a painting. And occasionally a painting of the wrong image entirely.

A medical diagnosis is the closest possible way of reaching absolute certainty.

Potential for misdiagnosis is not synonymous with inaccurate/subjective etc



Adamantium wrote:
I am using ontology in the conventional sense: the theory of the nature being, the nature of reality.
I am using epistemology in the conventional sense: the theory of knowledge and the method of distinguishing justified belief from opinion.
The only way this is possible with respect to autism is by using the present medical literature and for medical professionals to continue to improve the accuracy of said literature - which they are always doing.

The simple act of having objective input defines the diagnostic process as the most effective way of being ontologically sound, given a subjective analysis cannot distinguish from the epistemological problems you mention i.e. not knowing whether one has a belief/opinion/delusion etc


Adamantium - I believe we possibly reached an agreement on your final point!! ! However, I cannot claim to have ontological certainty :)



wozeree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,344

29 Nov 2014, 11:25 pm

I love this thread, it's so not unredundant! 8O



Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

29 Nov 2014, 11:28 pm

Part of the diagnostic criteria of autism is that symptoms must be present in early childhood.
Therefore if you are diagnosed as an adult, you were autistic before your diagnoses, but it was not recognized.
One hundred years ago there were autistic people but their autism was not recognized because autism was not yet defined.
If you don't have a diagnosis you will not be recognized as autistic by the medical profession, autism researchers, or the legal system, even though you may actually be autistic.
Autism is a diagnoses, but it is also a condition that exists with or without a diagnoses but will not be recognized until it is diagnosed by a professional qualified to diagnose autism, at which time you will have an autism diagnoses.



btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

29 Nov 2014, 11:32 pm

I don't even know what the words ontology and epistemology mean.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

29 Nov 2014, 11:37 pm

Marybird wrote:
it is also a condition that exists with or without a diagnoses
Which cannot be confirmed without a diagnosis.

Until such time, you could have:

Münchausen syndrome
Delusional Disorder
Hypochondriasis

etc.

And you could be malingering



anthropic_principle
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 300

29 Nov 2014, 11:40 pm

I don't think anyone would deny this.. what you're saying sounds absolutely truistic.
To say otherwise would be like saying you aren't a human until you have a birth certificate.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1026
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

29 Nov 2014, 11:45 pm

wozeree wrote:
I love this thread, it's so not unredundant! 8O


I don't not know what you you mean, wozeree.

And I tried to stop myself form posting it, but I just couldn't let it go.

I can't accept that someone really meant that the label creates the reality, though I agree with the point made by sociallysensitive that the process of description and label making that resulted in the DSM and ICD criteria is what allows people to share information about the concept of that aspect of reality that is called autism... but if it is not remembered that the scientific method is a process designed to help reveal an underlying reality and instead the thought is that the the descriptive and investigative processes are the reality, something has gone badly wrong.

Some links which might be helpful to anyone interested in the definition and application of the words ontology and epistemology:
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl257/Classical/ontology_and_epistemology.htm
From which I will quote:
Quote:
ontology is about what is true and epistemology then is about methods of figuring out those truths

https://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/socsci/documents/research-training-presentations/EpistFeb10.pdf



Last edited by Adamantium on 29 Nov 2014, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

29 Nov 2014, 11:49 pm

anthropic_principle wrote:
I don't think anyone would deny this.. what you're saying sounds absolutely truistic.
To say otherwise would be like saying you aren't a human until you have a birth certificate.


The difference is the logic.

If you are a human, it can be diagnostically confirmed you are not a zebra.

If you suspect you have autism, it has yet to be diagnostically confirmed that you do not have another condition, such as Münchausen syndrome.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

29 Nov 2014, 11:53 pm

Adamantium wrote:
but if it is not remembered that the scientific method is a process designed to help reveal an underlying reality and instead the thought is that the the descriptive and investigative processes are the reality, something has gone badly wrong.


The control measures put in place by the scientific (and medical) community are the very things which allow the revealing of the underlying reality and the continual improvement of the description of these various realities.



Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

29 Nov 2014, 11:55 pm

sonicallysensitive wrote:
Marybird wrote:
it is also a condition that exists with or without a diagnoses
Which cannot be confirmed without a diagnosis.

Until such time, you could have:

Münchausen syndrome
Delusional Disorder
Hypochondriasis

etc.

And you could be malingering

In which case you would not be autistic.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Nov 2014, 11:58 pm

sonicallysensitive wrote:
anthropic_principle wrote:
I don't think anyone would deny this.. what you're saying sounds absolutely truistic.
To say otherwise would be like saying you aren't a human until you have a birth certificate.


The difference is the logic.

If you are a human, it can be diagnostically confirmed you are not a zebra.

If you suspect you have autism, it has yet to be diagnostically confirmed that you do not have another condition, such as Münchausen syndrome.


Why does it have to be assume if someone suspects they have autism they are 'faking' that is what munchausen syndrome is essentially, also usually the person is aware they are exaggerating/faking at least that is what I thought. It is a disorder because I guess the person cannot control this 'behavior'...but why would most people suspecting they have autism have that particular condition? Seems to be a sublte implication that those without an official diagnoses are 'faking', which seems just a little insulting.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.