|
So because Mr. Lehrer with his indepth knowledge of neuroscience (presumably from his degree from Columbia in journalism or science; his bio on Wired is rather terse) summarized findings from a real neuroscientist -- without footnoting the study -- and uses those findings to draw his own conclusions, this becomes truth as published by The Telegraph.
The author of the article in The Telegraph uses Mr. Lehrer's flawed thinking, citing a barely related study from Princeton -- also not footnoted for our reference -- and fits those findings as did Mr. Lehrer in his article for Wired to draw his own semi-sensationalist conclusions that paper and ink is superior to retention than are e-readers.
Puh-lease! This flawed methodology drives me crazy. Neither of the "journalists" are experts, and their homework appears shoddy. The one neuroscientist's study and the Princeton study which are presumably reputable, properly conducted studies have NOTHING to do with books vs. e-readers. The only scientific conclusions drawn are that people may retain more information when they are forced to read in different fonts. In no way does anyone except the respective writers conclude that paper and ink is superior to e-ink.
All of my medical reference books and professional journals are printed at higher resolution in black ink in familiar fonts on white paper. The same goes for all of the paperback novels I used to buy. Now that 100% of the novels I read and some of my reference books are on my phone, Kindle 3 and Nook Color only means that they are more readily available than on my bookshelf. I retain and enjoy just as much on my e-readers as I did with a physical book.
And to the posters here with anecdotal evidence of how they "know" that books are better than e-readers for retention: glad it works for you. It ain't scientific evidence, but rather your personal preference. By the way, it's my personal preference stated in the above paragraph as well.
|