Feedback: Evidence in the Science Section.

[Peripheral]

I understand that we are not experts.

An idea could be brought up in search for science based evidence and research.

Should all posts that don't follow evidence based material/logic,

be removed from this section until it can show some type of evidence based knowledge or research?

It is the science section for a reason.

[Peripheral]

Maybe to be able to ask for and get some type of evidence when in dispute,

or post moved to a non-evidence based section?

To keep the section, evidence based scientifically.

I know in the past I have not provided evidence based opinions,

and also replied without evidence and emotions in full gear.

But I would be happy if someone moved my thread/post to a different section if it was not evidence based with no problem.

This is something I want to better myself at, and would love for people to hold my feet to the fire in the science section.

We have emotional disregulation,

And it would be neat to have a section where we work on evidence and not emotional replies.

I think it would be good for everyone.

[sarahsweets]

I don't think there is anyone here who can debate or discuss without emotion. Evidence can sometimes be subjective. Who gets to decide what's true evidence?

[Peripheral]

Originally Posted by sarahsweets

I don't think there is anyone here who can debate or discuss without emotion. Evidence can sometimes be subjective. Who gets to decide what's true evidence?

Research!

Period!

On any subject.

I am sure there must be some rules to a scientific discuss already laid out.

Anybody?

I am only talking in the Science Section.

This is so important, that s what science is! Evidence.

No evidence no science,

Why have a section called science section?

Good Question SarahSweets!

I agree that we all have emotional dis regulation.

Thats why I feel the topic of evidence is so important.

To keep the emotions where they belong.

Not in the science section.

[Dizfriz]

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

I understand that we are not experts.

But many here have an amazing amount of information and a number have a trained scientific background.

An idea could be brought up in search for science based evidence and research.

Should all posts that don't follow evidence based material/logic,

be removed from this section until it can show some type of evidence based knowledge or research?

It is the science section for a reason.

Should all posts that don't follow evidence based material/logic,

be removed from this section until it can show some type of evidence based knowledge or research?

I do not agree. To me, the science section is for science related ideas on the subject of ADHD topics. This is where they are discussed, challenged, defended, taken apart or supported as the case may be.

With so many things in science, we yet have only a little or sometimes no evidence yet, only ideas. That is the exciting part of science, that to which we do not have answers but we do have wonderful questions. This curiosity to look at open questions is what drives science.

To give two examples that relate to you, we know that epigenetics is real but we have no idea of the extent of what it can do. Another is neuroplasticity. Again we know it exists and that it can do some amazing things but like epigenetics, we have no idea of where this will carry us. This makes a wonderful area for discussion but many will insist (as will I) that the discussion follow more or less what the science currently shows.

Sometimes emotion can come in especially someone's pet idea gets thoroughly challenged but that is what it is all about. At least to me, the scientific section is where someone can present their ideas, let them be challenged to provide evidence supporting those ideas. If they can't then the proper correction is to go back to the research and books, read and study some more; in other words come back with new data. This is what much of science is about; presenting and being challenged.

The clarifying phrase is "This section is ONLY for ADD/ADHD-related Scientific and Academic discussions."

So to me, if someone wants to conjecture on a ADHD related scientific subject in this section, I have absolutely no objections. This is the right place to do it. A number of times I have presented some ideas that I clearly say I do not evidence but isn't it an interesting idea? I have always gotten good reception for this. I think starting out with admitting the lack of evidence is part of that reception. I can then present my reasons for the thought. Keep in mind, the key phrase in much of science is not "Eureka!" but "Mmmmm, that's interesting."

I do think that the particular forum should be restricted to more or less ideas and subjects relating to the science of ADHD but that is a minor restriction.

Just my thoughts, agreement is not required.

Dizfriz

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by Dizfriz

I do think that the particular forum should be restricted to more or less ideas and subjects relating to the science of ADHD but that is a minor restriction.

Just my thoughts, agreement is not required.

Dizfriz

So what are the boundaries of "the science of ADHD"?

At a minimum anything of relevance to neuroscience, genetics, attachment theory, and psychiatry in general has to be included.

I read an interesting article by Milton Friedman recently highlighting that the very act of licencing doctors tends to make us timid about doing anything that doctors do not usually do, or thinking anything that doctors do not usually think. If we say confine ourselves strictly to science done explicitly with the diagnosis of ADHD in mind we effectively create an intellectual ghetto which will exclude many sources of relevant information.

Incidentally that is exactly the criticism I would make of many of the most ADHD specific researchers- they do not seem to be cognizant of the broader implications of general neuroscience to their fields of interest.

[sarahsweets]

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

Research!

Period!

On any subject.

I am sure there must be some rules to a scientific discuss already laid out.

Anybody?

I am only talking in the Science Section.

This is so important, that s what science is! Evidence.

No evidence no science,

Why have a section called science section?

Good Question SarahSweets!

I agree that we all have emotional dis regulation.

Thats why I feel the topic of evidence is so important.

To keep the emotions where they belong.

Not in the science section.

So if I'm understanding you you don't want opinion in the science section if it cant be cited?

[Dizfriz]

Originally Posted by Barliman

So what are the boundaries of "the science of ADHD"?

You should perhaps discuss this with the administrators and moderators of the forum. It is, after all, their rules.

At a minimum anything of relevance to neuroscience, genetics, attachment theory, and psychiatry in general has to be included.

Again this is up to the management of the forum. The description of the forum is "This section is ONLY for ADD/ADHD-related Scientific and Academic discussions." How this is interpreted is strictly a management decision.

I read an interesting article by Milton Friedman recently highlighting that the very act of licensing doctors tends to make us timid about doing anything that doctors do not usually do, or thinking anything that doctors do not usually think. If we say confine ourselves strictly to science done explicitly with the diagnosis of ADHD in mind we effectively create an intellectual ghetto which will exclude many sources of relevant information.

Are you really advocating not licensing doctors to give them more flexibility? I really do not think you are but it sure could be read that way.

Incidentally that is exactly the criticism I would make of many of the most ADHD specific researchers- they do not seem to be cognizant of the broader implications of general neuroscience to their fields of interest.

Interesting, I have not noticed this, Just the opposite in fact. Could you give some examples? Are you pointing to a lack of awareness of general neuroscience or not using this awareness as you might wish?

There is a very good possibility that researchers such as Barkley are aware of these things but see the implications differently than you.

Interesting points though.

Dizfriz

[Peripheral]

Originally Posted by Dizfriz

But many here have an amazing amount of information and a number have a trained scientific background.

I do not agree. To me, the science section is for science related ideas on the subject of ADHD topics. This is where they are discussed, challenged, defended, taken apart or supported as the case may be.

With so many things in science, we yet have only a little or sometimes no evidence yet, only ideas. That is the exciting part of science, that to which we do not have answers but we do have wonderful questions. This curiosity to look at open questions is what drives science.

To give two examples that relate to you, we know that epigenetics is real but we have no idea of the extent of what it can do. Another is neuroplasticity. Again we know it exists and that it can do some amazing things but like epigenetics, we have no idea of where this will carry us. This makes a wonderful area for discussion but many will insist (as will I) that the discussion follow more or less what the science currently shows.

Sometimes emotion can come in especially someone's pet idea gets thoroughly challenged but that is what it is all about. At least to me, the scientific section is where someone can present their ideas, let them be challenged to provide evidence supporting those ideas. If they can't then the proper correction is to go back to the research and books, read and study some more; in other words come back with new data. This is what much of science is about; presenting and being challenged.

The clarifying phrase is "This section is ONLY for ADD/ADHD-related Scientific and Academic discussions."

So to me, if someone wants to conjecture on a ADHD related scientific subject in this section, I have absolutely no objections. This is the right place to do it. A number of times I have presented some ideas that I clearly say I do not evidence but isn't it an interesting idea? I have always gotten good reception for this. I think starting out with admitting the lack of evidence is part of that reception. I can then present my reasons for the thought. Keep in mind, the key phrase in much of science is not "Eureka!" but "Mmmmm, that's interesting."

I do think that the particular forum should be restricted to more or less ideas and subjects relating to the science of ADHD but that is a minor restriction.

Just my thoughts, agreement is not required.

Dizfriz

I agree with and always appreciate being corrected when correction is due.

You have much better comunication skills that me.

That being said .

You (Dizfriz) and I(me) have a history of not seeing eye to eye on some serious topics..

And this is where I get emotional because there is no evidence against me in your arguments,

But you disagree with me , (again you have that right)

But to disagree with my evidence without evidense,

gets me worked up.

People come to you for help about my posts.

And I think they are right to do so,

You have a lot of knowledge,

And help tonnes of people.

So hear my evidence,

Because I feel it will help you help other people.

Evidence based Science should not be a popularity contest.


I think our differences can be settled in the Science section.

You sound like you have made your conclusions and I disagree with some of them.

So how did you come to your conclusions?

So lets not start throwing stones and show the research.

I like your ideas of the science thread being ADHD.

I just assumed (this being a ADHD Forum), and it was good of you to correct me.

The kind of corrections for the science section would be great.

I agree 100% ,with you when you say,

At least to me, the scientific section is where someone can present their ideas, let them be challenged to provide evidence supporting those ideas. If they can't then the proper correction is to go back to the research and books, read and study some more; in other words come back with new data. This is what much of science is about; presenting and being challenged.

I think your example of a science section was perfect.

(I have no schooling past , grade 12 and never come close to reading any books fully when I was younger, never typed before, and I have emotional dis regulation)

I can now with medication (but I still need lots of practice because I am far behind, but I am happy with my progress.)

I agree that we are not experts.



When you say...

A number of times I have presented some ideas that I clearly say I do not evidence but isn't it an interesting idea? I have always gotten good reception for this. I think starting out with admitting the lack of evidence is part of that reception.

I don't disagree if you want to make these non-evidence based assumptions,

in a different section than the science section.

But I do disagree if you make them in the science thread .

The majority of the people in the world thought the world was also flat.

But they where not correct.

When someone says that ADHD is genetic?

Most people agree.

But I don't.

I don't disagree that genetic sensitivity is involved when a person develops ADHD.

(key word = develops)

But "just genetics" is far from the only part in developing ADHD.



But please don't take my word for it or any one elses.

Let the evidence based science.


To many times I have been caught up in the she said she said,

Argument over this topic.

I do disagree when people say it is not preventable in some cases

So lets forget about the popularity contest and show all research.

Because I can't speak very well but I can ,

Clique, Paste and Research very well.

No popularity contest needed.


I want a place to be able to discuss things with out getting worked up.

I don't get worked up by being wrong.

I get worked up when people tell me I'm wrong but can't explain why?

Then explain others that I am wrong based on ?.

You give your opinion on Epigentics, and Neuroplasticity and how people;s genes get expressed without environment being the decisive factor.

But in the science thread please, bring your evidence.

It will be much easier for people to understand me in an evidence based manor as well.

[Peripheral]

Originally Posted by sarahsweets

So if I'm understanding you you don't want opinion in the science section if it cant be cited?

Yes.....

Thanks you !

[Peripheral]

Originally Posted by Barliman

So what are the boundaries of "the science of ADHD"?

At a minimum anything of relevance to neuroscience, genetics, attachment theory, and psychiatry in general has to be included.

I read an interesting article by Milton Friedman recently highlighting that the very act of licencing doctors tends to make us timid about doing anything that doctors do not usually do, or thinking anything that doctors do not usually think. If we say confine ourselves strictly to science done explicitly with the diagnosis of ADHD in mind we effectively create an intellectual ghetto which will exclude many sources of relevant information.

Incidentally that is exactly the criticism I would make of many of the most ADHD specific researchers- they do not seem to be cognizant of the broader implications of general neuroscience to their fields of interest.

Yes I would think any professional, and subjects involving anything to do with ADHD.

One topic I have not touched on yet is Psychology of ADHD from a neurological angle.

[Peripheral]

Originally Posted by sarahsweets

So if I'm understanding you you don't want opinion in the science section if it cant be cited?

Sorry

Addition,

This seems like the most logical way to look at what I think would be good.

On any subject involving ADHD.

No personal opinions without citations.

its hard to break it down and agree on what science is.

But we all know what citations are.

the topic is huge,

Citations like in Wiki would be perfect.


I don't see why we can't have one section,

where popularity and prejudgments are not involved.

Of course it is up to the people who run the show here what final decision is made.

Thanks

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by Dizfriz

You should perhaps discuss this with the administrators and moderators of the forum. It is, after all, their rules.

Again this is up to the management of the forum. The description of the forum is "This section is ONLY for ADD/ADHD-related Scientific and Academic discussions." How this is interpreted is strictly a management decision.


Are you really advocating not licensing doctors to give them more flexibility? I really do not think you are but it sure could be read that way.

Interesting, I have not noticed this, Just the opposite in fact. Could you give some examples? Are you pointing to a lack of awareness of general neuroscience or not using this awareness as you might wish?

There is a very good possibility that researchers such as Barkley are aware of these things but see the implications differently than you.

Interesting points though.

Dizfriz

That is possible.

Equally- Barkely does pitch to an audience- and that audience is very much the legislators who need to be influenced to make allowances etc.
One of our Melbourne psychiatrists has met Barkely and said he is far less black and white, and far more aware of some of the positives associated with ADHD than his public presentations would suggest.


I think the biggest holes I am aware of
1) Barkely's references to the growing body of evidence on mindfulness have been tangential at best.
2) The lack of awareness of the broader implications of "The Polyvagal Theory" outside mind body and trauma therapists.

The latter is a real big one- and I am confident that the knowledge it covers will be a major game changer in the management of any condition involving emotional dysregulation- especially as there is already in existence cheapish personal biofeedback apparatus to help exploit it.
I need to write a much longer post on this one as i am just finishing off the book "The Polyvagal Theory" and will have to find a way to cogently tie it all together into a useful review article.

It is of course hard to give examples of what does not appear in an authors work- because it isn't there

[pechemignonne]

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

I agree with and always appreciate being corrected when correction is due.

You have much better comunication skills that me.

That being said .

You (Dizfriz) and I(me) have a history of not seeing eye to eye on some serious topics..

And this is where I get emotional because there is no evidence against me in your arguments,

But you disagree with me , (again you have that right)

But to disagree with my evidence without evidense,

gets me worked up.

I think the problem is that people who disagree with you, such as myself, do not view your "evidence" as evidence, because it is either not related to ADHD or merely conjecture written in a book. Someone's opinion, whether or not it is written in a book, is not actually evidence.

On the contrary, I and many other posters have referred to actual scientific evidence, but without quoting something from a book, and you dismiss this as non-evidence.

Basically, Dr. Barkley's entire career is scientific evidence against your points. I submit that you look into his works.

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

I don't disagree if you want to make these non-evidence based assumptions,

in a different section than the science section.

But I do disagree if you make them in the science thread .

I think this is incredibly unfair of you, since you are posting completely unproven theories in the science section, and have in fact taken it over with several threads all on the same topic. The only difference between what you don't want DizFriz to do and what you are doing is that DizFriz can admit it when there is no scientific evidence to back up her points.

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

The majority of the people in the world thought the world was also flat.

But they where not correct.

When someone says that ADHD is genetic?

Most people agree.

But I don't.

The difference being that the evidence is in favor of the world being round, and the evidence is also in favor of ADHD being genetic. Whether or not most people agree is neither here nor there.

In fact, most people don't agree that ADHD is genetic, most people apparently believe that ADHD doesn't exist or is just an excuse for bad parents and lazy teachers to drug children into obedience.

The people who believe that ADHD is genetic are generally speaking the experts in the field or people who have ADHD themselves who have seen the family links and have looked at the research themselves.

So really, in your earth analogy, you would be a flat-earther.

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

I do disagree when people say it is not preventable in some cases

So lets forget about the popularity contest and show all research.

Because I can't speak very well but I can ,

Clique, Paste and Research very well.

No popularity contest needed.

I don't know what this "popularity contest" you are talking about is referring to, but I can assure you that the research shows that ADHD is predominantly genetic, apart from the portion which is caused by injury. That is what every single scholarly article and textbook about ADHD says.

Originally Posted by Geronimoo Back-Y-Rita

I want a place to be able to discuss things with out getting worked up.

I don't get worked up by being wrong.

I get worked up when people tell me I'm wrong but can't explain why?

Then explain others that I am wrong based on ?.

You give your opinion on Epigentics, and Neuroplasticity and how people;s genes get expressed without environment being the decisive factor.

But in the science thread please, bring your evidence.

It will be much easier for people to understand me in an evidence based manor as well.

I think people are telling you why it's wrong. I've seen other people's posts, so I'm quite sure of it, in fact. I think you're either not understanding or not listening.

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by Dizfriz

Are you really advocating not licensing doctors to give them more flexibility? I really do not think you are but it sure could be read that way.

Dizfriz

Not really- however it is worthwhile being aware that there are distortions and limitations in any system we use- the distortions in licencing are very much towards excessive conformity and intellectual stasis.
I will not go into the long history of problems that that has caused- but we could start with the man who suggested washing hands between delivering children, and was hounded to his death.