Very informative. I never cease to be surprised that, despite being a geriatric autistic, I know very little about the issues surrounding research into autism. I'm glad to hear that there's a growing group of autistic people researching autism, because the use of autistic lay people to provide an autistic perspective during the peer review of this work feels like lip service.
Hi! Since this is a philosophy podcast, I had hoped for a bit more philosophy, or at least a bit more clarity on what is being discussed. Here’s my question for Chloe: if “autism” is an “abstract concept” and therefore not real, shouldn’t it also be the case for “autistic people”? I mean, the concept of autistic people as a kind of people. Surely we should all deserve to be known by those around us as individuals, not just a particular kind of people?
Anyways, the podcast has an interesting premise and I will keep checking back for new episodes. Sadly though, I don’t feel like I am the target audience, which is okay since I am an overly pedantic philosophy major, which absolutely no one should be. Are you aware of the book The Philosophy of Autism edited by Jami L. Anderson and Simon Cushing? Perhaps you could invite people who contributed to the book onto the podcast to talk about it. The late Ian Hacking also wrote about Autism as a “human kind”, maybe it is time to give an updated look on the state of autism via his approach? I am just throwing random ideas at you, hope no offense is taken.
I don't think I can answer your first question (on behalf of Chloe); speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with abstract concepts. (: I think the really interesting point Chloe is making is not "there are no abstract concepts related to autism" but rather "the dominant abstract concept of autism isn't useful, and is often downright harmful."
Don't worry--there will be plenty more material in upcoming episodes for philosophy enthusiasts such as yourself! This episode sets the stage for future episodes--it clarifies the practical stakes of philosophical questions, particularly questions about value assumptions in autism science. In episode 2 (already available), we interview the philosopher Daniel Dennett about the history of "theory of mind" and how we measure it. In episode 3 (coming out tomorrow), we discuss methodological and ethical problems in research on "autistic theory of mind deficits" with an up-and-coming autistic psychology researcher (Tobi Abubakare). And episodes 4 and 5 pivot to related issues in philosophy of science (in those episodes, we interview two more neurodivergent philosophers of science: Travis LaCroix and Joe Gough). So, there will be lots of empirically-grounded philosophy coming up!
I do know the Anderson and Cushing collection, which contains some good contributions. But I can't recommend that book as a first introduction to the philosophy of autism; it's over ten years old, and so it cannot engage with more recent (and crucial) empirical and philosophical work on autism. It also includes only one contribution from an autistic person (as far as I know). In part because of the practical concerns Chloe raises in episode 1, we think it's really important for the philosophy of autism to fully include philosophy done by many different autistic people. When it comes to interviews, we're prioritizing talking to neurodivergent scholars. We will offer some more up-to-date reading suggestions in episode 5! (And Hacking's work is among those suggested readings.)
Very informative. I never cease to be surprised that, despite being a geriatric autistic, I know very little about the issues surrounding research into autism. I'm glad to hear that there's a growing group of autistic people researching autism, because the use of autistic lay people to provide an autistic perspective during the peer review of this work feels like lip service.
Hi! Since this is a philosophy podcast, I had hoped for a bit more philosophy, or at least a bit more clarity on what is being discussed. Here’s my question for Chloe: if “autism” is an “abstract concept” and therefore not real, shouldn’t it also be the case for “autistic people”? I mean, the concept of autistic people as a kind of people. Surely we should all deserve to be known by those around us as individuals, not just a particular kind of people?
Anyways, the podcast has an interesting premise and I will keep checking back for new episodes. Sadly though, I don’t feel like I am the target audience, which is okay since I am an overly pedantic philosophy major, which absolutely no one should be. Are you aware of the book The Philosophy of Autism edited by Jami L. Anderson and Simon Cushing? Perhaps you could invite people who contributed to the book onto the podcast to talk about it. The late Ian Hacking also wrote about Autism as a “human kind”, maybe it is time to give an updated look on the state of autism via his approach? I am just throwing random ideas at you, hope no offense is taken.
Hello!
I don't think I can answer your first question (on behalf of Chloe); speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with abstract concepts. (: I think the really interesting point Chloe is making is not "there are no abstract concepts related to autism" but rather "the dominant abstract concept of autism isn't useful, and is often downright harmful."
Don't worry--there will be plenty more material in upcoming episodes for philosophy enthusiasts such as yourself! This episode sets the stage for future episodes--it clarifies the practical stakes of philosophical questions, particularly questions about value assumptions in autism science. In episode 2 (already available), we interview the philosopher Daniel Dennett about the history of "theory of mind" and how we measure it. In episode 3 (coming out tomorrow), we discuss methodological and ethical problems in research on "autistic theory of mind deficits" with an up-and-coming autistic psychology researcher (Tobi Abubakare). And episodes 4 and 5 pivot to related issues in philosophy of science (in those episodes, we interview two more neurodivergent philosophers of science: Travis LaCroix and Joe Gough). So, there will be lots of empirically-grounded philosophy coming up!
I do know the Anderson and Cushing collection, which contains some good contributions. But I can't recommend that book as a first introduction to the philosophy of autism; it's over ten years old, and so it cannot engage with more recent (and crucial) empirical and philosophical work on autism. It also includes only one contribution from an autistic person (as far as I know). In part because of the practical concerns Chloe raises in episode 1, we think it's really important for the philosophy of autism to fully include philosophy done by many different autistic people. When it comes to interviews, we're prioritizing talking to neurodivergent scholars. We will offer some more up-to-date reading suggestions in episode 5! (And Hacking's work is among those suggested readings.)