There is much wisdom in these two essays on dyslexia, by
Snowling and by Coltheart and Jackson, as well as a useful
and informative summary of many key research findings.
Given the fact that debates about the diagnosis and
concept of dyslexia have been running for at least the last
40 years (see e.g. Rutter, 1969), and given the immense
amount of high-quality empirical research that has been
conducted (see e.g. Bryant & Bradley, 1985; Goswami,
1994; Rispens, van Yperen, & Yule, in press), it might be
expected that most of the main controversies ought to
have been resolved by now. But they have not, as is
apparent from the contrasting positions adopted in this
forum. It might be hoped that, at least, any well-informed
dispassionate reviewer should be able to arbitrate and so
decide which view is most valid. Unfortunately, even that
is not readily possible. A key problem is that the two
papers seem to be starting from different premises and,
thereby, tackling a somewhat different issue.