Creatively Ironic

I mentioned in the previous post that much of the argumentation in the vaccine-cause-for-autism strikes me as pseudoscientific. This is not to say that the research may someday show, conclusively, that vaccines play a role (or even the major role) in the development of autism in a child. However, it is the language used presently in the arguments for this theory that lead me to question it. I often refer to an excellent survey by Lilienfeld, Lynn, and Lohr called "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology". It contains some excellent reference articles about trends and problems in Clinical Psychology including a discussion on autism treatment methods. In the Preface of the book, they devote a couple of pages to a definition of pseudoscience. I've used it as my guide many times;

1. An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immuize claims from falsification
2. Absence of self-correction
3. Evasion of peer review
4. Emphasis on confirmation rather than fefutation
5. Reversed burden of proof
6. Absence of connectivity
7. Overreliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence
8. Use of obscurantist language
9. Absence of boundry conditions
10. The mantra of holism

The expansion of each point has been thoughtfully reproduced at the Cult Education Forum., which includes a link to the relevant chapter in the book.