Check out an article in the "Science" section of the NYT's that discusses the association between watching TV and attention span in children. Same issue, surprise, surprise, in that it's clear that there is the assumption that if two variables occur together in time, there's a causal relationship. Check it out as it's a good one to illustrate in your classes.
Joan > Hmmm, it worked for me when I got the message :( > > Oh well, it's a similar but not the same article. > > What really got my eye is that it's on the front page of the paper touting > a > causal link, when in fact they provide zero data for a causal > relationship. In > the body of the article they try to convince you that it is causal even if > the > data are only correlational. We've just been talking about this in > research > methods so the timing was perfect for me. > > Annette > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> On 7 Mar 2006 at 12:15, Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: >> >>> I hope this link works for everyone. A great piece for research >>> methods class. This was on the front page of the Sunday San Diego >>> Union Tribune. You may have to paste the whole thing in two batches >>> into the address line. >> >> Doesn't work for me, and its archives won't cooperate. But is this >> the same article, as reprinted in the Las Vegas Sun? >> >> http://tinyurl.com/fveqz >> >> And the article doesn't work for me either. Do you think they can say >> "randomized control study"? >> >> But around these parts up here, we don't say soda. I think you must >> be referring to what we call "soft drinks" or, for some reason I >> don't understand, my own family idiosyncratically taught me to call >> "ginger ale", although it isn't. "Pop" isn't in my vocabulary either. >> >> >> Stephen >> > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
