| ??? 02/08/07 16:09 Read: times |
#132310 - Still no evidence Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Craig Steiner said:
Worked fine here. Let me guess, you're trying to open it with xpdf or something like that? Nope, I was viewing it with Firefox, which uses ggv to render pdfs (at least on my system). It works ok with xpdf. He actually did provide support and he's awaiting your response. Ok, here's my response. The article is from The Economist, hardly what I would consider a scientific publication. When a claim with significant repercussions is made, and it's claimed to be scientific fact, then it must be supported with solid scientific data. I don't see that in this article. I'm not unfamiliar with statistics--show me the data not some economist's possible misinterpretation of the results. Pretty much everything in our body deteriorates over time and I have no reason to believe otherwise of the brain. I do. Barring some form of dementia, such as Alzheimer's, those who stay mentally active, and pursue new knowledge throughout their lives, not only stay as mentally sharp as when they were young, but their greater knowledge base gives them a distinct advantage over the younger folk. As for the article's statement that academics publish less as they get older, it's a wild leap of illogic to assume that it's because their brains are deteriorating. There are confounding factors that are much more significant, such as the fact that new postdocs are under great pressure to publish, even if it's inferior research, compared to those with established reputations. Clearly the author does not have a good grasp of statistics, and the result is what usually happens when non-specialists attempt to interpret for the lay public. In other words, the article is worthless as "support" for the claim that was made. I also know it's common knowledge that language skills are picked up by children much faster than an old person trying to pick up a new language. Not true. An adult who immerses him/herself in a culture can speak a new language fairly fluently within a year. A child takes up to ten years to gain the same fluency. I suspect you're thinking of those who take high school or college language courses, which focus on syntax and grammar rather than the sink-or-swim, learn by doing method. I'm really not taking a position on this particular matter, just playing devil's advocate for what seem like some kind of weak responses. Perfectly reasonable--that's what debate is about ;-) So, Rob made a claim with serious repercussions, and asserted that it was scientific fact. My challenge still stands: show me the data. |
