- 11 Apr 2017 15:54
#14796028
http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental- ... autism.htm
I believe that if something logically follows, and you can find a strong correlation between the two, waiting for mathematic proof of causation is a mistake. We simply lack the technology to prove if television is causing autism on the epigenetic level, but it has been shown many times that there is a correlation between areas that are exposed to a lot of television and autism rates. We can also observe, quite simply, that the vegetative state when watching television and the vegetative states that characterize many forms of autism are superficially similar. What I am suggesting here is that if a persistent vegetative state in an individual becomes expressed in their epigenetics, their children are more likely to be born with forms of autism. This is impossible to prove from a scientific perspective but the correlation is strong and the theory makes sense because we know that epigenetics effect mental and emotional predispositions. Just because it's beyond our ability to prove doesn't mean it isn't happening.
http://www.nber.org/bah/winter07/w12632.html
I believe these people missed the point of their own studies. If there is a high exposure to things like television prior to the age of three, that means there could be high exposure to things like television prior to the child being born. The key exposure here is not necessarily to the child in its formative years, it could also be that the exposure to the parents in the periods preceding conception.
Unfortunately, it's our nature these days (especially in the west) to assume that if we can't prove it mathematically, it must not be true, no matter how consistent or rational the correlation might be.
But a group of researchers out of Cornell and Purdue has focused on a very different possible cause: television. And while headlines are announcing "TV Causes Autism," that's not an accurate representation of what the study found.
Here's what the researchers actually discovered:
Autism-diagnosis rates began to increase dramatically around the same time that cable TV was introduced in the United States, and counties with greater access to cable TV saw greater increases in autism diagnosis.
Autism-diagnosis rates have increased faster in rainier parts of the country.
The researchers related the second finding to television by referring to other studies that suggest that children in rainier climates tend to spend more time indoors than children in less rainy climates; and children who spend more time indoors tend to watch more TV.
What the study did not discover is that TV causes autism.
I believe that if something logically follows, and you can find a strong correlation between the two, waiting for mathematic proof of causation is a mistake. We simply lack the technology to prove if television is causing autism on the epigenetic level, but it has been shown many times that there is a correlation between areas that are exposed to a lot of television and autism rates. We can also observe, quite simply, that the vegetative state when watching television and the vegetative states that characterize many forms of autism are superficially similar. What I am suggesting here is that if a persistent vegetative state in an individual becomes expressed in their epigenetics, their children are more likely to be born with forms of autism. This is impossible to prove from a scientific perspective but the correlation is strong and the theory makes sense because we know that epigenetics effect mental and emotional predispositions. Just because it's beyond our ability to prove doesn't mean it isn't happening.
http://www.nber.org/bah/winter07/w12632.html
While the results indicate that "there is a trigger for autism where exposure to this trigger is positively related with the amount of precipitation in the child's community prior to the age of three," it does not prove that television watching is the trigger, since there could be other indoor activities that children are also more likely to engage in when it rains.
I believe these people missed the point of their own studies. If there is a high exposure to things like television prior to the age of three, that means there could be high exposure to things like television prior to the child being born. The key exposure here is not necessarily to the child in its formative years, it could also be that the exposure to the parents in the periods preceding conception.
Unfortunately, it's our nature these days (especially in the west) to assume that if we can't prove it mathematically, it must not be true, no matter how consistent or rational the correlation might be.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!