DeSoto & Hitlan, 2007: Revisited – Part Three
January 27, 2008 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
“Q. What is wrong with bloggers posting anything they want?”
“A. Nothing if everyone reading it took the time to verify everything they read on their own.”
- M. Catherine DeSoto And Robert T. Hitlan
“We don’t think we could have said better ourselves.”
- Do’C and Interverbal
DeSoto & Hitlan, 2007: Revisited – Part Two
January 25, 2008 by Do'C Printer-Friendly Version
By Do’C and Interverbal
In Part One of our DeSoto & Hitlan, 2007 revisit, we mentioned that we thought DeSoto & Hitlan made several important mistakes, (including some that merit formal correction), and that it is this aspect specifically, and not DeSoto & Hitlan’s abilities, that we call into question. Before we get to those important mistakes, we’d like to respond to a few of the apparent minor misunderstandings of logic, contained in the DeSoto & Hitlan FAQ.
Logical Fallacies
DeSoto & Hitlan imply in their FAQ that we used several logical fallacies. Specifically they write:
California: CDDS Q4 2007 Autism Data
January 23, 2008 by Do'C Printer-Friendly Version
Final numbers for 2007 are out. As usual, anyone can have a look at the data themselves at the CDDS website.
And don’t forget to read the important disclaimers.
As for these CDDS numbers, I’m done watching them on any sort of regular basis. David Kirby’s year came and went. Read more about that here, here, and here.
Some of you may be wondering about those shifty goalposts out there. Remember this: eventual decreases in the (recently steady) rate of caseload growth, are practically a given. (Hint: compare the 3-5 year old autism caseload cohort as a percentage of California’s 3-5 year old population to the current autism epidemiology, or prevalence estimates).
DeSoto & Hitlan, 2007: Revisited – Part One
January 23, 2008 by Do'C Printer-Friendly Version
By Do’C and Interverbal
Introduction
Back in November of 2007 we wrote an article about a recent paper by DeSoto & Hitlan. Also, Dr. DeSoto has since published a FAQ about the paper at her university website.
The intention of our original article was a critical look at what this paper had to offer to those interested in autism research. When we first read the DeSoto & Hitlan, 2007 paper, we noticed several issues that concerned us greatly.
There seemed to be some gray areas and even overt errors that should be addressed. In our opinion, these errors range in form, from overstatements about cited articles, assertions for which no appropriate supporting science was presented, and reliance on older publications that were not subjected to the process of peer-review, to citation of a paper that does not appear to support the assertion for which it was cited in the first place. We also looked at the statistics in some detail.
A Little Left Rudder
January 1, 2008 by Do'C Printer-Friendly Version
Happy New Year Autism Street readers, commenters, and lurkers!
2007 was another great year at Autism Street and I would be remiss if I didn’t take a minute to thank all of those who guest blogged here last year. In my opinion, the guest-blogged pieces make for some of the best reading and information here.
I’d also like to thank all of you who read and participated in the comments last year. Your discussion has made Autism Street a fairly interesting place (more so than it would be without the discussion).
That said, I’ve been thinking a little about the new year ahead of us. Sure a calendar year is just a convention, but the future is important. What do I plan to write about? What do I think is important in the coming year? I hadn’t thought of anything specific so far, but it did occur to me that a new year means new parents. If I had just a few minutes to present something to the parents who may be new to an autism diagnosis in the family this coming year, what would I say? Here’s a couple of thoughts that came to mind.
Recent Comments