Well here we are again, in what is quickly turning into a very broad disagreement. Christschool's latest response "But this is Sparta!" is now out. My reply will be in point-counterpoint format.
"My Rebuttal: I never stated that there hasn't been group studies in which non Lovaas behaviorists have done. What I stated, which is contained in the quote you used was that the 47% myth has "never been replicated independent of Lovaas' small group of behaviorists"."
Oh I see; but I notice that a little bit of verbal dexterity is required to make this work. There has been a replication that produced 48% by a Lovaas student and there have been other non-Lovaas students who produced statistically significant research in this regard. However, there has certainly never been a non-Lovaas student who produced the famous 47%. Well then, I cheerfully cede the point.
"Thus, using Interverbal's own self selected reference we can see that there has been no replication of Lovaas' 1987 47% myth according to Sallow, Graupner (2005)."
To support this, Christschool sites the following from Sallow and Graupner (2005):
"There have now been several reports of partial replication without using aversives"
Of course, this is not what Sallows and Graupner argued at all. By defintion we can only produce a partial or systematic replication, because a portion of the indepedent variable (aversives) are absent. Sallows & Graupner are clear and up front about this.
However, a systematic replication is still a replication. This type of replication either extends the population parameters of the original study (external validity) or allows us to analyze changes in the independent variable. Sallows & Graupner do both. It is a different sort of replication, but it is a replication regardless.
"Based on my background as a commercial bankerHYPERLINK "http://www.careeroverview.com/commercial-banking-careers.html", I would make an educated guess that 800 employees would translate into about a revenue number of nearly $30 - $ 50 million per year ( I have no proof of this number, but like Interverbal states when he says behaviorists are qualified to discount possible PTSD complications from ABA because behaviorists work with lots of autistics and are qualified to make this determination, I too wish to employ my expert background in commercial banking to assert that revenue number)."
I do not take issue with Christschool's argument, but I wish he would not misrepresent mine either. I do not argue that behavior analysts are qualified to discount PTSD, unless of course they have credentials and experience in the area. Some behavior analysts do have expertise in PTSD. One of my undergraduate mentors was an expert and researcher in PTSD. However, I argue that we see no evidence of it. If we see no evidence of it and no science exists to the contrary why would we study it?
I analyzed this in my last post using a rhetorical device; namely, displacing certain words words into Christschool's argument to create a new argument that accurately reflects another view of autism that both Christschool and I oppose. The point I made was that Christschool's logic was poor in this regard.
"For instance, and I don't mean to pick on Interverbal here, but when I stated that vaccines have caused autism in children (based on information supplied to me by 2 children who had been diagnosed with autism as a result of undergoing vaccines as children) and that there aren't any studies that have been done to look into possible complications from vaccines such as autism, his response wasn't what I would expect from a curious and science based person."
I think this was a poor argument when it had the words ABA and PTSD and I think it is still a poor argument now.
"Afterall, DAN! has scienceness studies too and all produced by DANNITES!"
No, it does not have applied science. This is a false comparison. The biom advocates have some basic lab science, but not applied science. Although, there have been some limited studies of both the GF/CF diet and Mb12 shots. Both studies indicated no effect.
"Similarly, researchers outside Lovaas' circle can't produce the 47% figure either, only those "certified" Lovaas replication sites can produce the 47%, oops, I mean the 48% indistinguishable criteria."
A callous argument to the point of error. A change from 47 to 48% will be within the band of error. Moreover, despite the verbal dexterity used to frame this argument, there is existing research with statistically significant results which was not produced by Lovaas' students.
"I purposely did not refer to Sallows in my previous post, "Skinner Confuses Science with Terminology", because he is just too easy to discredit on circumstantial grounds alone"
Only if we employ a fallacy.
"Is this what passes for ethics in Behaviorism? Is this what passes for science in Behaviorism? Lies, damn lies and emotive marketing. No different than DAN! and just as scienceness."
Individuals make their own choices. The WEAP site does not reflect the way I or others discuss ABA. Nor does this tell us anything about behavior analysts' ability to accept criticism.
"Interverbal, I stand by my statement. No replication has ever occurred outside one of Lovaas' inner circle of behaviorists and I disagree with you. This is Sparta!"
I acknowledge that with the specific wording you are right. Frankly, I think the point is worthless? My concern is that a replication exists at all, not who did it. Although, I notice once again that others also achieved statistical significance who were not in Lovaas' group.
As to Sparta, I think I have demonstrated that behavior analysts can and do accept criticism when it is shown to have merit. You have not cogently argued this point. Instead you give an example of one center advertising in a way we would both disagree with.
Christschool, if you had argued that "sometimes behavior analysts incorrectly quote ABA science or autism science", then we would not be having this debate. We would be in total agreement. Instead you argued broadly that behavior analysis, is unscientific, a point you have massively failed to support. The best evidence you have for your original argument, that behavior analysis is unscientific (in other words that this is Sparta) are the dancing Spartan heads on your blog.