I am still working to understand all you wrote, but if I sound like I’m trying to elevate scientists or over anyone else’s thinking, I’ve worded (or omitted words from) my post badly.

If someone studying electrons assumes that they’re all act in identical ways, it tends to work out, because (ok, I know this is circular…) they really do seem to be that way. But that kind of thinking in the wrong context can be disasteraous, i.e. “all autistics lack a theory of mind.” Super wrong tool for trying to understand the subject. But since that tool has a mystique associated with it (to enough people, anyway), the theories it generates gets oohs & aahs and real recognition for having the ring of “fancy-academic-fru-fru-
-sounds-like-something-Einstein-would’ve-said-
-so-it-must-be-true” to it.

I just don’t like the truth — or more to the point, understanding — determined by mystique. I don’t like that some autism ‘experts’ seem to be doing that.

As for Berkeley, Johnson, stones, toes, and Science, (not sure I’m not mistaken about your stance, though): is science not mostly about humans finding out that their conceptualization of the Natural World was wrong (for lack of better word)? And do those conceptualizations mean anything outside of human minds? It’s all in our heads, IMO.

As an aside: I once met a mathematician who believed that numbers existed independently from humans.

I have to admit, though, that I find most Philosophical writings incomprehensible. So maybe I don’t really understand the Bishop at all.

Incidentally Johnsons doctorate was an honorary one for in his youth he could not afford to graduate. It was awarded because of his life long literary efforts in the cause of spelling words in a way that is held to be incorrect by todays new fangled pedants.

Of course Derrida must have the last laugh as this cartoon illustrates
http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/cartoon.htm

Well Ben Franklin another honorary doctor had his own ideas about that as well. Put Franklin and Johnson in a ring together and then the sparks would fly, never mind whether the flys were undone.

I’m no mind-reader (too…many…jokes…), but it seems common for people to get their ego (social status?) entwined with their work. So, if they’re work is as an expert, and they find out they’re wrong… well, an emperor may well not want to know he has no clothes on. Especially if he’s already started parading before the people proclaiming his expertness. –Like someone giving a speech, knowing his shirt tail is sticking out his fly, but not fixing it in an irrational attempt to change reality by deflecting all criticism of the wished-for reality which isn’t true.

For clarity, I think this goes for any kind of people, it’s just that some are going to be more likely to see it if it’s someone saying they’re describing that person’s 1st hand experience and they’re wrong. That is, there are autistic as well as NT ‘experts’ I disagree with. But I cannot help but notice that the few autistics who are ‘recognized’ have been allowed to be such — those that don’t fit the proper mold (say the right things, or have the right acoutraments^5, etc.) don’t get allowed^6. …All that begging the point of needing to be allowed differently from any ‘expert’ or other human being is a lot of BS.

Escaped slaves barred from engaging in discussions about Abolition.

—

^1 Alan Sokal^3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
^2 See Postmodern Generator at:
http://herbert.the-little-red-haired-girl.org/en/dada/index.html
^3 Footnote added for academic impressivity^4
^4 Recursion is fun.
^5 fancy letters after their name; I’ve seen a bit of what it is to get those fancy letters to know it has as much, if not more, to do with money, time, & life circumstances than anything else. Intellect? Can’t hurt, but lots of people meet that requirement.
^6 or considered equally human

I’m no mind reader (too…many…jokes…), but it seems common for people to get their ego (social status?) entwined with their work. So, if they’re work is as an expert, and they find out they’re wrong… well, an emperor may not want want to know he has no clothes. Especially if he’s already started parading before an audience proclaiming his exptertness. Like someone giving a speech, knowing his shirt tail is sticking out his fly, but not fixing it, rrationally hoping noone will notice; cutting the audience Q&A microphone whenever someone begins to point it out.

And for clarity, I think this goes for any kind of people, it’s just that some are going to be more likely to see it if it’s someone is saying their describing that person’s 1st hand experience and they’re wrong. IOW, there are autistic as well as NT ‘experts’ I disagree with. But I cannot help but notice that the autistics who are ‘recognized’ (in the large ASA, NAS kind of ways, and others) have been allowed to be such — those that don’t fit the mold (say the right things, or have the right acoutraments)^4 don’t get allowed. …All that begging the point of needing to be allowed being a lot of BS.

—

^1 Alan Sokal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair^3
^2 http://dev.null.org/dadaengine/^3
^3 Footnotes added for academic impressivity^5
^4 fancy letters after their name (I’ve been close enough to that to
know it has
^5 Just because recursion is fun.

And I do speculate in retrospect that if the pallete were made of wood from a tree which fell in a forest when there was no-one there what then?

When first started learning about autism I tended to grab one or another buzzword, especially if it fit my characteristics, but I never seemed to end up with a whole person. I was a collection of buzzwords, perhaps. And for many things, there was no “expert” buzzword, but some words that seem to be used among people who are talking online, such as “inertia,” which I do find to be a useful concept, or “shutdown”. After a year, I am learning that I need to focus on the entire person/forest/spectrum.

Oh. I have been wondering lately… Is SPECTRUM a word that is really useful at all? Besides the personal problem of it always also making me think of the word speculum :), just WHAT does it mean to be “on” a “spectrum”? Is spectrum just another expert buzzword? DEFINE spectrum (not directed to Amanda or anyone to define, just a rhetorical question).

this impairment is rampant…

among all those people who say “real autistics can’t do… [thing some/many/most auties can do]” and “[person] can’t be autistic because… [insert stereotype]”, and “[person] does [misunderstood action] because of [inaccurate reason]”,… etc.