3 ms·

On a meta-level... I think this style of reporting is terrible for the topic. There are three main voices: the journalist, the scientists, and an everyday perso

by logn 13y ago

On a meta-level... I think this style of reporting is terrible for the topic. There are three main voices: the journalist, the scientists, and an everyday person. The only one I trust on this are the scientists and the others are just confusing the whole issue. On top of this, there are some humanities professors the journalist treats as scientific authority. All of this is woven together in a pseudo-science tale that's really not worth a careful read.

coldtea 13y ago
>On top of this, there are some humanities professors the journalist treats as scientific authority. Well, they are. Their field is how humanity understands itself, and what traditions (historical, literary, etc) and values we have. The results of the "real" scientists are useless when not valued and judged under a humanist interpretation. E.g, scientific measurable fact: "We're reading less". OK, so what? Is that good or bad -- not with regards to mere "evolution" (which might not even be applicable to such timespans and matters), but concerning the kind of society we want to build? That's where the humanities professors come into to play (as does "the man on the street" -- we're all men on the street, after all).
- logn 13y ago
  Discerning any scientific results from this article was impossible when filtered by all non-scientists. I'm happy to see lay/ethical/moral discussions of research but I'd like to at least clearly see the science first. The information presented in this article wasn't different than what any average group of people could have come up with over lunch, but it's written with this authoritative and dramatic tone like we're all learning something. They bring up some startling 'scientific facts', that the internet may be permanently changing our brains and destroying reading ability. There's some confused explanations of evolution (or lack thereof) thrown in. Can we all try to understand this first before we zip to a pleasant concluding paragraph from a mother raising kids?

by logn 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>On top of this, there are some humanities professors the journalist treats as scientific authority. Well, they are. Their field is how humanity understands itself, and what traditions (historical, literary, etc) and values we have. The results of the "real" scientists are useless when not valued and judged under a humanist interpretation. E.g, scientific measurable fact: "We're reading less". OK, so what? Is that good or bad -- not with regards to mere "evolution" (which might not even be applicable to such timespans and matters), but concerning the kind of society we want to build? That's where the humanities professors come into to play (as does "the man on the street" -- we're all men on the street, after all).

logn 13y ago
Discerning any scientific results from this article was impossible when filtered by all non-scientists. I'm happy to see lay/ethical/moral discussions of research but I'd like to at least clearly see the science first. The information presented in this article wasn't different than what any average group of people could have come up with over lunch, but it's written with this authoritative and dramatic tone like we're all learning something. They bring up some startling 'scientific facts', that the internet may be permanently changing our brains and destroying reading ability. There's some confused explanations of evolution (or lack thereof) thrown in. Can we all try to understand this first before we zip to a pleasant concluding paragraph from a mother raising kids?