zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
I'm always bothered by how doctor's word is always taken as gospel. Anyone who's gone through the medical merry-go-round knows that doctors opinions on the same set of symptoms can be all over the place, some even outright idiotic.

>>Workac+le
Folks identified the dad as weird and in over his head, so untrustworthy and guilty. This isn't isolated, it's the norm. So, for 30 years or so the medical community had this voodoo DX to justify locking up social outcasts. And they seem completely OK with having done so. The DX sort of is not accepted anymore. But, the article describes a list of other voodoo sciences that demonstrate something remains very broken in the process for establishing facts, and we see time and time again that systems you'd think are driven by analytical rigor are really just a school popularity contests all grown up.

>>unytti+bg
That could all be true, but folks also testified they personally witnessed him violently shaking at least one kid.

You can be against junk science, but entertain the likely possibility he also did it.

>>SV_Bub+Un
No, not really. Let's say the testimony was reliable, which it wasn't. What's the proper inference: that he kept going with bad parenting and escalated to murder? Or, that he recognized what he did was unhelpful and problematic so never did it again? How do you choose between inferences? In this way, the "evidence" comes back, again, to something alarmingly like a popularity contest which turns, quite unacceptably, on these people's presuppositions about a socially awkward dad trying to raise the child solo.