|
Conclusion THE SPECTRA OF LEARNING DISORDERS: By Applied science, in general, presupposes that there is a corresponding theoretical discipline to insure that its adopted nomenclature is grounded in reality. As I have explained, learning disorders terminology emerged first in the lexicographic realm without an underlying, disciplined taxonomy. Assuming that the applied treatment of learning disorders has precluded an orderly scientific evolution, generation of terminology has often been arbitrary, leaving out key portions of the individual and the individual's environment. The lexicalization of learning disorders without a corresponding taxonomy has resulted in the adoption of a major lexeme termed, "learning disabilities." Thus, there is only a line spectrum for learning disorders, and said elements are dark lines that wouldn't exist without a background of talent with which to contrast them. A scientifically grounded taxonomy might have recognized other areas within the individual such as psychogenic and volitional factors. Extrinsically, a scientifically grounded taxonomy might have bracketed LD with differential factors thus allowing a distribution of taxons, which when adopted by customary usage would have become working lexemes useful for differential diagnoses. I entertain the misgiving that the stipulation of brain damage originates, not from laboratory based neurological sources, but from multidisciplinary groups. Should educational luminaries be accorded the privilege of stipulating fixed neurological defects? It would seem that applied science is being formulated at the committee level rather than the investigational level. The use of the term "presumed" rather than "shown" or "demonstrated" tells an unseemly story and has LD parting company from experimental science (Kavale & Forness, 1998). It says, in effect, "The LD application has circumvented scientific grounding." This suggests that all subsequent research to refine growing applications can automatically be flawed by making the non-axiomatic, but convenient CNS assumption, thus prioritizing political agendas over underlying sciences, but nevertheless offering findings couched in the use of scientific terminology. Were applications of the above LD definitions served up to the public as convenient guesses shorn of the rhetoric of scientific objectivity, the public at large might have a better chance of understanding their shortcomings. Beyond recorded observations, scientific research rests in this area upon the dual pillars of surveys and experimental research. Whereas the main purpose of conducting surveys is to determine profiles of characteristics and associations amongst variables (not controlled), the main purpose of experimental research is to determine causal relationships amongst controlled variables and associated, dependent variables. There is no provision for presumed causality in experimental design. Presuming causality dwarfs any other degradation of validity that might have been introduced by other experimental biases. Nevertheless the operational definition for LD rests upon presumed CNS causality. It seems to me that presuming causality defeats the entire paradigm of the scientific method. With the contamination of presumed causality, LD is now on its own as an application, but not as a science. Yet the literature that LD researchers and practitioners generate seems to claim the respect, privileges, and immunities of a scientific franchise. Could the presumption of CNS causality be a post positivistic, perhaps even a constructivistic, social experiment? The LD paradigm confuses dependency with determinism. We carbon-based life forms are, indeed, dependent on our neurological structures and biochemistries. But, when all organic prerequisites are met, we humans don't go into a state of hibernation awaiting the next homeostatic imbalance to act upon. The fact that the NJCLD insists that LDs are intrinsic, neurological, and potentially permanent shows that the LD paradigm ignores volition, and therefore, rejects the idea of personhood. Nowhere is determinism more apparent than in the biochemical model. In spite of the mention of self-regulatory behaviors, the emphasis is not on "self," but on "behaviors." The answer put forth is to flood young brains with chemicals that engender increases in neurotransmission. If that doesn't work, instead of looking towards the individual's hopes and aspirations, the next step is to modify, and typically increase, medication. Because the incentives, tools (especially language tools), and the states of the art all favor perpetuation of a narrow, line spectrum, new voices must emerge to engender a broadening of the learning disorders assessment and treatment spectra. And where will these voices come from? They must emerge from the same genre that created the problem, but experts who can think outside the LD box. My limited experience on the world wide web has suggested that there are highly respected people who are now making isolated attempts to counter current LD practices. I suspect their numbers are great enough that, were their efforts now coordinated over the internet, then the media, parents and the public at large will eventually begin to realize what's happening to our children.
|
||