Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
1. I see that it upsets you that I've linked to just one article, but you linked to zero articles.
I established from the start that I have followed the progress of science in this field since the pioneers from the 1960's. You are proud to have read one article.
2. In regards to funding:
a) The research was only partially funded by the marketing branch of the German book industry, and I'm not sure why you would assume that the other groups funding the research would agree to be linked to corrupt results.
You are obviously totally ignorant of how a mere 10% of private funding is enough to routinely corrupt scientific research. The majority of science published today is corrupt, and the majority of papers published nowadays are later proven false when some honest scientists try to reproduce the results, as anyone who has been closely following science for the past decades perfectly knows. What have you done with your brain during the last decades ?
b) The publishing industry would prefer people to stay with paper books because they have better control of distribution channels for paper books.
This is a dream they have clearly renounced. Is your brain stuck in 2005 ? 2006 ? 2007 ? 2008 ?
3.They didn't set out to contradict the large-scale survey of students and faculty at University College London, they set out to see how the the subjective impressions correlate with objective measurements.
If you were knowledgeable enough to understand why the majority of science is corrupt by capitalism, your interpretation would differ. But you are so ignorant that it makes you very naive. You are the perfect target for this Public Relations operation by the marketing arm of the modernizing German book industry.
4. You are complaining about the reading comprehension error rate graph. What you have ignored in your complaint is the error bar on the data. The differences between the results for the three mediums are within the standard mean deviation for the data, which is why they are interpreted as being the same. This is also why the graph scale is larger than the data sets.
Your subjectivity/intellectual dishonesty shows in your last sentence : this visual presentation on a 100% scale is dishonest because it allows them to flatten the difference in error rates...and what a coincidence : they do not publish the raw data ! Just this poor graphic ! You subjectively, willingly fail to see that because these researchers have an agenda dictated by their funding, they obviously are going to interpret everything in a way to please their master. Then your "naive" brain set to defend those researchers under the influence of the MARKETING branch of the digital hungry German book industry fails to see something clear, which is that both groups show the same result : people understand a text much better when they read it on paper. What an unacceptable fact for the MARKETING branch of the digital hungry German book industry. A fact that could have been established perfectly by recruiting even more participants in the study to have more reliable and precise statistics...but then there would have been absolutely no way to dismiss this crucial finding. Then why conduct a research on a sample that small ? Because it allows freedom of interpretation ! Bingo !
5. It's not EGG, it's EEG ( Electro Encephalo Gram).
You fail to see that in your next quote lies the proof that I know what an EEG is. You also obviously are totally ignorant of the research of Marshall McLuhan and Herbert Krugman, the pioneers in this field that I quoted from the start. Had you not been so intellectually lazy, you would have checked their research and found out that it all started with EEGs. You are so pretentious for someone that ignorant.
6. "And why theta, but neither alpha nor beta waves?"
The alpha waves were used as reference for each participant.
One more incredibly poor comment. If Marshall McLuhan and Herbert Krugman could read this converstation, they would ask the moderators of this forum to ban you until you read their research.
7. I don't know how you define "prestigious science journal", but it has the respect of Nature: |
What I mean is that not only has this paper not been published in a major scientific publication, but neither has it been published in a specialized scientific publication that deals with a field of science this paper relates to. Not a single scientific monthly or quarterly dared publish this pathetic paper. Why don't you write serious scientific paper journals a letter explaining them why you think they missed a great opportunity of ridiculing themselves ?
Did you know that the tobacco industry had enrolled Nobel Prize winners to convince people that cigarettes would not kill them ? That is how deeply capitalism dares to corrupt science. Still, decades later, the Editor in Chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association had to publish this, because things had changed, much for the worse :
http://www.medicossinmarca.cl/wp-con...al-science.pdf
Here is a quote directly related to our differing approach to the article you naively defend : "For-profit companies also can exert inappropriate influence in research via control of study data and statistical analysis, ghostwriting, managing all or most aspects of manuscript preparation, and dictating to investigators the journals to which they should submit their manuscripts. For example, I have been told that in response to JAMA's policy requiring an independent statistical analysis by an academician for industry-sponsored studies in which the only statistician who analyzed the data is employed by the study sponsor, some companies are insisting that the researchers not submit those studies to JAMA. That tactic risks not only the perception that the company may have something to hide, but the reputation of any researcher willing to accede to such a company demand. Since the announcement of our policy requiring an independent statistical analysis, only one company has refused to obtain this second analysis of the submitted manuscript, and that decision came only after full review and evaluation by JAMA. When we indicated that JAMA would not publish the paper without the required independent statistical analysis, the authors and sponsor withdrew the paper from JAMA; that paper was published elsewhere shortly thereafter and has received much media coverage. I can only hope that the decision by the sponsor was based on something other than not wanting an outside analysis of data that might have uncovered flaws in the original analysis."