Originally posted by NordlysSounds neat! I'll have to check this out too.
Well, sort of recommended - as I haven't read it yet myself, I can't really recommend it, but it sounds interesting. Another interesting book about music and the brain that I have read is "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy" by Robert Jourdain: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/books/Jourdain97.html
I think I should get one of those discount cards, my library seems like it's on the way to doubling in the next few weeks.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI do understand that correlation is often times the only thing we have to go on. I also understand that causation is impossible to prove statistically. But when you're reporting on a study conducted by an organization with an obvious bias:
You have to understand that in Social Sciences correlation (in a broad sense, not simply sample correlation but within statistical models) most of the times is the only thing we DO have. Causation is simply impossible to prove statistically. No matter how many instrumental variables, filtering techniques, etc., because data doesn't come from a controlled exp sk those mistakes, we wouldn't actually have learned what we already know in these sciences.
"The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education"
http://www.nea.gov/about/index.html
whose study "showed correlations between the decline of reading and social phenomena as diverse as income disparity, exercise, and voting" (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain), nasty phenomena indeed, I think it's only responsible that reporters make the strength or weakness of the scientific claim explicit in the article. Unfortunately, most layreaders will take these correlations as statements of fact about causation. This situation is relatively benign, as not much harm can come from encouraging people to read more, but in other cases it is not. I just wanted to make the point that the article is misleading, intentionally or not.
Of course, you make a good point that if we didn't use correlations as a starting point for determining the mechanism of correlation, we would be in deep water indeed. Sometimes I just feel like being a stick in the mud. 😉
Originally posted by PBE6The Creature From Jekyll Island, it's about the history of money and the development of the US Federal Reserve.
I've been reading books about psychology, the brain, and sociology (and one about physics) lately, and just like my feelings on frilly toothpicks, I'm for 'em!! Anyone read anything along those lines recently that they enjoyed? Also, if the title/cover are bold enough, I'll switch gears and read any fun suggestions. Even Emily Dickinson...but only if she poses nude on the cover.
Originally posted by PBE6The Conscious Mind, by David Chalmers.
I've been reading books about psychology, the brain, and sociology (and one about physics) lately, and just like my feelings on frilly toothpicks, I'm for 'em!! Anyone read anything along those lines recently that they enjoyed? Also, if the title/cover are bold enough, I'll switch gears and read any fun suggestions. Even Emily Dickinson...but only if she poses nude on the cover.