Autism discourse is not about science as much as it is about philosophy

I wish more people understood that most of the topics being argued about in autism awareness spaces are actually philosophical and not scientific. 

What is autism?

What it says in the DSM? That would be scientific. 

But the people suggesting it's more than that are not actually arguing against science, they're arguing a philosophical point. That autism is more than what psychologists and scientists have figured out so far.

Is autism a disability? 

Well, according to how disabilities are defined by most governments, it is. 

But people arguing the point aren't arguing against disability rights (usually... though some are 😬). Most are arguing a philosophical point. That autism can't be summed up in the way we think and talk about disabilities. 

Does autism need a cure? 

Another philosophical discussion point.

Do we need to keep searching for the cause of autism? 

Another philosophical discussion point.

Is higher support needs autism the same condition as lower support needs autism?

Another philosophical discussion point. 

There are very few objective *known* truths about autism. What we know and believe about autism is almost entirely philosophical.

The question "what defines autism" is along similar lines of the most well known philosophical question of all time. 

What defines human existence?

And one of the most famous philosophical quotes of all time answers the question... 

"I think therefore I am." In other words, I exist because I have thoughts. (This quote is from Descartes.)

But even that answer is just one perspective of many. There are hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions of other, equally valid perspectives. 

And similarly, there is no known objective, irrefutable answer to the question "what defines autism."

Just a few (maybe even many at this point) really strong philosophical perspectives.

One of which uses the scientific method as a basis. Which is the perspective that was used to define autism in the DSM. But even that has evolved and changed significantly over time (and will continue to).

And the scientific method that was used to define autism in the DSM has many well known and widely acknowledged issues. 

The main one being that it has historically only looked at *observable* behavior patterns. 

But we now know that autism is far more than just what can be observed. Which has actually helped our community make monumental progress in the past 10 or 20 years.

And it even brought to light an entire generation of overlooked autistic people. 

"The lost generation." 

People who were always autistic but didn't have enough observable traits for it to be noticed. Some who made it to their 60s and 70s (and even later in life) without a diagnosis.

Some who never got a chance to know about their autism in their lifetime. 💔

And this new knowledge and understanding is also why so many people are finally starting to learn about their autism as adults, much later in life.

Because we now know so. much. more. about masking and the "hidden" traits of autism. (So much so, that the DSM was revised to include masking.)

And if our community at least got on the same page about this... 

Understanding that most debates in the autism awareness space are philosophical...

That there is no known absolute correct or incorrect definition of autism... 

I think we would have many more meaningful and productive conversations rather than anxiety inducing, emotionally exhausting, and sometimes even emotionally painful arguments.

P.s. for those who don't know, I have a degree in philosophy. And I'm now realizing just how absolutely integral philosophical understanding is in our community dialogue.