Facilitated Communication is Not Science

@FCisnotScience One of the insidious aspects of experimental bias is that as the experimenter learns to unconsciously control the results, the experiment seems to work better. This is sometimes interpreted by the E as acclimation by the subject to the experiment.

@FCisnotScience If there’s an experimenter, there’s a risk of bias. It usually trends towards the desired result as the person learns through feedback how to unconsciously make it happen. We should assume that an experiment that doesn’t explicitly control for a potential bias has that bias.

@AltB56073878 I’d a similar exchange, though I didn’t ask for data. I asked about the result, to confirm our calculations that most of the responses were wrong. He didn’t, but pointed to the gradual increase in accuracy (~16% max). I regarded this as bias consolidation, not improved accuracy.

Does Cardinal, Hanson, and Wakeham's 1996 study prove authorship in FC (Part 5) facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/does-card…

Talking back to "Talking Back to Autism" facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/talking-b…

Does Cardinal, Hanson, and Wakeham's 1996 Study Prove Authorship in FC - Part 4 (Facilitator Behaviors) facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/does-card…

@FCisnotScience SJT’s gone, so I’ll be careful. Probably safe to say he was “finessing” his supposed FC neutrality. Just because you “get along” with critics of a thing doesn’t mean you can’t be a promulgator of it. He was obviously OK with bad methodology and specious conclusions drawn from it.

@FCisnotScience It was in a later issue. I heard that editor had gotten criticism not just for favorably showcasing FC, but for the low quality of the Cardinal, Sheehan, and Weiss articles. By 1996, the dangers of FC were abundantly clear. Taylor, a Biklen colleague went easy on FC.

@FCisnotScience You should highlight the editorial about this item (and two others) in which the editor admits steering them away from critical reviewers. My view then, as now, was: a technique that can easily generate unconscious allegations against innocent people ought not be treated lightly.

@FCisnotScience It’s common for FC advocates to talk about it being the “largest study.” That’s not the flex they think it is. If you have 43 supposedly proficient FC users working with experienced facilitators—and none shows reliable communication—you’ve pretty clearly shown FC doesn’t work.