[shakna]

> As for question 3...all current measures seems to point towards 'yes' [13], however, all current measures are also disputed as to whether or not they are accurately measuring ToM [14].

I think this where we're getting stuck.

For me, if a methodology is in doubt, then so are any conclusions that rely upon it. If the methodologies are in doubt, then the conclusions shouldn't be used as a foundation for anything.

Whereas for you, it seems that you'll continue along with the previous belief until such time as new methodologies quantitatively say one way or the other.

[jcranberry]

I wouldn't say I hold such a strong position. I tried to make my conclusion fairly noncommittal ("it wouldn't be correct in my eyes to say it's certain in any way that people with ASD have a ToM deficit"). My knowledge has evolved along with this conversation (hence why we may have seemed 'stuck'), so perhaps my conclusive tone of writing was inappropriate, which may have created a false impression of certitude.

Back when I was in school for mathematics and taking a few grad classes (my math knowledge drained out unfortunately quickly) I was told by a colleague that the Riemann Zeta hypothesis was generally regarded as 'true', and that it's not uncommon for mathematicians to do research proving theorems on the condition that the Riemann Zeta hypothesis is true. Point being, don't think there's anything wrong building on something which we may not yet know to be true...as long as caveats are stated up front.