This is another small part of the discussion between David and Andrew.
Oppenheimer is another example of Paradigm Inertia in science. One of his students at Caltech by the name of David Bohm proposed an alternative theory for quantum mechanics and at that time Oppenheimer called a conference of the world’s leading physicists without inviting Bohm to it and sad, we are going to do everything we can to disprove him and if we can’t disprove him we are all going to ignore him. The same kind of paradigm inertia paralyses science. So science is an instrument that can be trusted when it's looking inside of a space that we kind of can agree on but it's not very good at seeing outside of its box and the history of scientists is full of examples of this Paradigm inertia which is at the heart of what's going on in the reading Wars and in The Sciences of today.
This is interesting coming from two guys who ignored my comments.
I have said this before and I say it again there are puppeteers who are pulling the strings of many of these educators.
These guys cannot be that stupid to disagree with me about phonological awareness deficit not being the cause of dyslexia. Why did many of the researchers/educators want research reports from me to support what I wrote to them? Can’t they think for themselves? LINK
Why did David Boulton block me on LinkedIn when I told him that his 2 videos are one of the causes of kids disengaging from learning to read. LINK
Why did Sharon Vaughn not reply to my email to her stating that I disagreed with phonological awareness deficit being the cause of dyslexia? LINK
These guys did and are continuing to do what Oppenheimer did to David Bohm – ‘we are going to do everything we can to disprove him and if we can’t disprove him we are all going to ignore him.’
Yes, most ignored me, some said they would stand by what they had said, but they could not hide the truth for too long and the theory that phonological awareness deficit is the cause of dyslexia was debunked in 2017. LINK
Surely, they cannot be that naïve not to be able to understand the causes of why kids are unable to read.
How silly can Tim Rasinski be to say that he agrees with the three main causes of kids being unable to decode/read but the other causes are fluency, vocabulary and comprehension? I have always maintained that decoding is separate from vocabulary and comprehension. But, no, these guys want to mislead the public like they have been for decades. LINK