Question reguarding Autism Theories

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, again.
I was wondering if anyone can tell me which theories of causes have been proven to be true? Or those that have been proven false/fraudulent?
I kind of need a list of those with the reasons why they were proven/disproven because I'm currently working on a community project within my town and I might not know when the information would come in handy.

No hypotheses have been fully supported or fully rejected. There are lots of hypotheses out there with strong evidence, but since ASDs are very complex in their etiology, chances are that no one piece of evidence will explain all cases. Those with neuropsychiatric disorders are a very hetereogenous group, and unfortunately, that makes it more difficult to tease out the genetic, chemical, and structural differences.

I understand that fairly well.
Yet suppose someone tries to pull the old "it's caused by X" routine, is there any way someone can tell if the supposed cause theory has been proven or disproven?

Nothing in science can ever fully be proven or disproven, but the more studies that have found significant or non-significant results on a certain topic, the more sure we are of the results' validity. For example, many studies have been done about vaccines being linked to autism and none has found a link of vaccines to autism. Maybe a very small number of children already prewired for ASDs have a traumatic reaction to the vaccine and have their symptoms start to show shortly afterwards, but from a scientific standpoint, the vaccine claim is moot. But this is really only because NO study on vaccines has found significance.

Most neuropsych disorders out there, ASDs especially, have the research literature filled with mixed, often contradictory results/findings. So, in these instances, finding significance sometimes but not others means that there is no clear-cut answer. Were the contradictory results brought about by type-I error or type-II error in one or more studies? Does a specific abnormality occur in only a small amount of participants, and sampling error turned out to have a large amount of these participants all be in the same test group? That's why it's particularly hard to sort out the neuropsych literature, because many of the claims may play an important factor in the disorder in a small subgroup of individuals. So, often, what we're seeing is that we tend to have to make a choice: either sacrifice symptom homogeneity to get increased power from a larger sample size or sacrifice power by using small groups with symptom homogeneity. And, of course, the first option may cause type-I error, whereas the second option may cause type-II error. It's very frustrating, because it's like you can't win!

My opinion is that autism is genetic. I can trace autistic traits through my mother's side of the family. I also believe it can take something to turn the autism gene on (if it isn't switched on already). In my case I was born by C-section after getting tangled up in my cord and messing up my oxygen intake.

as far as i know, the only theory that has any evidence is the genetic factor, all others rely on 'fair enough', 'makes sense' and 'seems legit' arguments, without undisputable evidence

I see.
I quickly edited the OP, just so I am a little more specific on what types of theories I am looking at and for future references.