internet vs books essay

Essay on Books vs. Internet

Students are often asked to write an essay on Books vs. Internet in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Books vs. Internet

Introduction.

Books and the internet are two primary sources of knowledge. While books have been around for centuries, the internet is a more recent phenomenon.

Books: The Traditional Route

Books offer a focused and in-depth understanding of topics. They are reliable, and the reader can take their time to absorb information.

Internet: The Modern Approach

The internet provides quick access to vast information. It’s interactive and constantly updated. However, it can be distracting and not always reliable.

Both books and the internet have their strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on individual preference and the nature of the information sought.

250 Words Essay on Books vs. Internet

In the modern world, the debate between the traditional medium of knowledge, books, and the new-age powerhouse, the internet, is prevalent. Both have their distinct advantages and drawbacks, shaping our learning and knowledge acquisition.

The Case for Books

Books have been a time-tested medium for centuries, offering in-depth, well-researched, and often peer-reviewed information. They provide a tactile experience, aiding memory retention, and promote focused reading without digital distractions. Their linear structure encourages comprehensive understanding and critical thinking.

The Power of the Internet

Contrarily, the internet offers vast, immediate, and diverse information. It facilitates interactive learning through videos, infographics, and online forums. It’s a dynamic platform, allowing real-time updates and global collaboration. However, the internet’s credibility can sometimes be questionable due to unregulated content.

Striking a Balance

While the internet is an incredible tool for quick access to a broad range of information, books remain invaluable for in-depth study and cognitive development. Striking a balance between the two can maximize learning. Utilizing the speed and breadth of the internet, combined with the depth and focus offered by books, can create a holistic learning experience.

In conclusion, neither books nor the internet can be declared superior outright. They serve different purposes and complement each other in the pursuit of knowledge. The key lies in discerning the right tool for the right task, leveraging the strengths of both mediums.

500 Words Essay on Books vs. Internet

The advent of the internet has significantly transformed the way we access, consume, and share information. The traditional reliance on books as the primary source of knowledge has been challenged by the vast, digital expanse of the internet. However, the debate between books and the internet is not a simple one, as each offers unique benefits and drawbacks.

The Charm of Books

Books have been the cornerstone of knowledge for centuries. They offer a tactile and intimate experience that many readers cherish. Reading a book allows for an immersive experience, free from the distractions that are often present with digital platforms. Furthermore, books provide a linear, structured approach to presenting information, which can aid in understanding complex topics.

Books also promote better concentration and improve cognitive abilities. The physical act of turning pages and the lack of hyperlinks leading to other information sources contribute to a more focused reading experience. Additionally, books are often better curated and edited, ensuring a high-quality, reliable source of information.

On the other hand, the internet offers unparalleled accessibility and diversity of content. It enables instant access to an almost infinite amount of information, from scholarly articles to forums, blogs, and multimedia content. This broad spectrum of information can cater to different learning styles and preferences.

The internet also promotes interactivity and collaboration, enabling users to share and discuss ideas, thereby fostering a dynamic learning environment. Moreover, it allows for real-time updates, ensuring that the information is current and relevant.

Drawbacks: Books vs. Internet

Despite their respective merits, both books and the internet have their drawbacks. For books, the information can become outdated, and the physical form limits their accessibility. They also lack the interactive and dynamic nature of online content.

Conversely, the internet, while offering vast resources, can also lead to information overload. The credibility of online content can be questionable, and the constant barrage of hyperlinks and multimedia can be distracting. Moreover, prolonged screen time can lead to health issues like eye strain and can negatively impact sleep patterns.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach

Books and the internet represent different ends of the information spectrum. While books offer a focused, immersive experience, the internet provides a dynamic, interactive platform for learning. Instead of choosing one over the other, a balanced approach that leverages the benefits of both can lead to a more enriching learning experience.

In conclusion, the debate between books and the internet is less about superiority and more about how we can integrate these resources to enhance our knowledge and understanding. Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each can guide us in making informed choices about when to use books and when to turn to the internet.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Excessive Use of Internet
• Essay on A Day Without Internet
• Essay on Uses of Electricity

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Books vs. Internet

What's the difference.

Books and the internet are both valuable sources of information and entertainment, but they differ in several ways. Books offer a tangible and immersive reading experience, allowing readers to disconnect from the digital world and engage with the text on a deeper level. They provide a sense of nostalgia and tradition, with their physical presence and the ability to flip through pages. On the other hand, the internet offers instant access to a vast amount of information, making it a convenient and efficient tool for research and learning. It also provides interactive features, such as videos and forums, that enhance the learning experience. However, the internet can be overwhelming and distracting, with the constant temptation of social media and other online distractions. Ultimately, both books and the internet have their own unique advantages and it is up to the individual to choose the medium that best suits their needs and preferences.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Books and the Internet are two powerful sources of information that have revolutionized the way we access knowledge. While books have been around for centuries, the Internet is a relatively new invention that has rapidly gained popularity. Both mediums have their own unique attributes and advantages, and in this article, we will explore and compare the various aspects of books and the Internet.

Accessibility

One of the key advantages of the Internet is its unparalleled accessibility. With just a few clicks, you can access a vast amount of information from anywhere in the world. Whether you are at home, in a coffee shop, or on the go, as long as you have an internet connection, you can access a wealth of knowledge. On the other hand, books require physical access. You need to visit a library or bookstore to find the book you are looking for. This can be time-consuming and may not always be convenient, especially if you live in a remote area with limited access to libraries.

Furthermore, the Internet allows for real-time updates and instant access to the latest information. Websites and online platforms are constantly updated, ensuring that you have access to the most recent developments. Books, on the other hand, may become outdated over time, especially in rapidly evolving fields such as technology or science.

Depth of Information

Books are known for their in-depth analysis and comprehensive coverage of a particular subject. Authors spend months or even years researching and writing a book, ensuring that it provides a deep understanding of the topic. Books often contain detailed explanations, examples, and case studies that allow readers to delve into a subject and gain a thorough understanding. On the contrary, the Internet can sometimes provide superficial or incomplete information. With the abundance of user-generated content and the ease of publishing online, it can be challenging to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones. This can lead to misinformation or a lack of depth in the information obtained from the Internet.

However, the Internet also offers a wide range of resources that can complement the information found in books. Online articles, scholarly journals, and research papers provide additional perspectives and up-to-date information that can enhance one's understanding of a subject. The Internet allows for a more diverse range of opinions and viewpoints, which can be beneficial for research and critical thinking.

Portability

When it comes to portability, the Internet has a clear advantage. With smartphones, tablets, and laptops, you can carry a vast library of information in your pocket. Whether you are traveling or commuting, you can access the Internet and browse through articles, e-books, or online resources. On the other hand, books can be bulky and heavy, making them less convenient to carry around. If you want to have access to multiple books, you would need to carry a bag or choose a few select titles to take with you.

However, it is worth noting that books do not require any external devices or power sources to be read. You can read a book anytime, anywhere, without worrying about battery life or internet connectivity. Books are also more durable and resistant to damage compared to electronic devices, which can be prone to technical issues or accidental damage.

Reading Experience

The reading experience offered by books and the Internet differs significantly. Books provide a tactile experience that many readers find enjoyable. The feel of turning pages, the smell of ink and paper, and the ability to physically highlight or annotate text are all aspects that contribute to the unique experience of reading a book. Books also offer a distraction-free environment, allowing readers to focus solely on the content without the temptation of notifications or ads.

On the other hand, the Internet offers a more interactive reading experience. Hyperlinks, multimedia content, and the ability to search for specific keywords or phrases make it easier to navigate and find information quickly. The Internet also allows for user engagement through comments, forums, and social media platforms, enabling readers to discuss and share their thoughts on a particular topic.

Cost is an important factor to consider when comparing books and the Internet. Books, especially new releases or specialized textbooks, can be quite expensive. Building a personal library can require a significant investment. Libraries provide a cost-effective alternative, but they may not always have the specific books you need. On the other hand, the Internet offers a vast amount of free information. Many websites, blogs, and online platforms provide valuable content without any cost. However, it is important to be cautious and verify the credibility of the sources to ensure the accuracy of the information obtained.

Additionally, the Internet has opened up new opportunities for self-publishing and digital distribution, allowing authors to reach a wider audience without the need for traditional publishing channels. This has led to the availability of free or low-cost e-books, further reducing the financial barrier to accessing information.

In conclusion, both books and the Internet have their own unique attributes and advantages. The Internet offers unparalleled accessibility, real-time updates, and a wide range of resources, while books provide in-depth analysis, a tactile reading experience, and a distraction-free environment. The Internet is more portable and cost-effective, but books offer durability and a sense of permanence. Ultimately, the choice between books and the Internet depends on personal preferences, the nature of the information needed, and the specific context in which it will be accessed. Both mediums have their place in our modern world, and by leveraging their respective strengths, we can maximize our access to knowledge and information.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Books vs Internet Research (What’s Better?)

We all do research on various topics several times a day, many times without even realizing we are doing it. Whether we’re searching for a new recipe or looking to find out how to do something, regardless of the complexity of the task, more often than not, we turn to the almighty Internet for answers rather than searching for them in specialty books. 

While this may seem to work just fine in many cases, what we usually don’t realise is that we’re actually missing out on a lot of information and make the active choice of speed over accuracy or complexity. 

Let’s take a closer look at this “books vs Internet” debate and find out which one is actually better for our research needs.

Which Is Better for Research, the Internet or Books?

Well isn’t this a question for the ages? And unfortunately, the answer is yet to be found. 

Even though many have tried to find a definitive answer, it all seems to come down to a series of factors: 

• The topic you’re researching
• How much time you have
• How in-depth you need your research to be 

Obviously, both reading books and Internet research have a series of benefits and disadvantages when compared to the other. Let’s have a closer look at these pros and cons.

Reading Books for Research –  Benefits and Disadvantages

• While the Internet has been around for decades, books have proven their value for centuries. So one of the first and most compelling arguments for reading books is that they have been used for hundreds of years as learning tools. Books have played a tremendous role in the development of civilization and have been used for learning by people who pushed the technology ahead time and time again. One would argue that if books were good enough to shape Nikola Tesla into the genius he was, they should be good enough for us. 
• Despite the unfathomable amount of information available on the Internet today , books tend to better cover the subjects you’re researching. 
• Books are timeless and convenient. You don’t need any device, battery or a connection in order to open a book and start learning about the topic you’re interested in.
• Books are easy on the eyes, which would allow you to spend a lot more time researching whatever you need to learn without any strain on the eyes.

Disadvantages

• It takes longer to do research using books than it does using the Internet
• Books don’t have a search function, so finding specific information using keywords is impossible
• The cost of using books for research can turn out to be quite high, depending on the topic
• Books are harder to carry around, so you might not always have access to them from anywhere

Using the Internet for Research – Benefits and Disadvantages

• The Internet gives you access to more resources than you could ever absorb in a lifetime on any topic
• The cost for Internet access nowadays is quite low and usually, there’s no limit to how much you are allowed to explore.
• Internet research is quick, easy and facile. It can be done from anywhere nowadays, as long as you have a device with an Internet connection and a full battery.
• You can’t trust everything you read on the Internet. We all learned that the hard way, especially in the past couple of years.
• The information is usually not structured as well as it is in books.
• The answers we find online to different questions usually only cover the subject superficially

That being said, the battle of Internet vs books ends up a draw in my opinion, at least when looking at the bigger picture. It all depends on the topic you’re researching and how well you need that subject to be covered in your research material. 

Why Are Books Better Than the Internet for Research?

Many times, despite the Internet being quicker, cheaper and sometimes more convenient, the winners of the books vs the Internet battle will be the books. Here’s why.

Let’s say you’re interested in learning a new skill. Maybe you’re thinking of a career change or you just want to explore a certain topic for different reasons. 

Maybe you want to start your own business or simply want to learn how to better run the business you already own. 

A simple Internet search for “how to be a better entrepreneur” could provide some answers. You will find tens, hundreds of articles on different websites with a couple thousands words each, a handful of bullet points and a “recipe for success”, guaranteed to help you achieve your goals. 

But that barely scratches the surface of what you should be learning in order to be a better entrepreneur. A book about management or leadership will contain hundreds of pages of valuable information, structured in an easily understandable manner and with a lot more context, which will help you better understand the topic than a couple of bullet points. 

These books have been written by industry leaders, experts in their field, people who have dedicated their lives to the topic you’re researching and have spent hundreds of hours trying to condense their lifetime of experience into a couple hundred pages for your benefit. 

Most articles you find online nowadays are written by professional content writers who research the topic you’re interested in for a couple of hours, read a couple of other materials for inspiration and spend another couple of hours actually writing the article that is supposed to make you turn your life around. 

Online articles are usually optimized for readability, for better loading times, and for better positions in the search results of your preferred search engine. 

There can’t even be a comparison between a book about leadership and an online search for “how to be a better leader”. How can it be? How can we compare a 200 pages book written by an expert to an online article written by a content writer who had a 3000 words limit for the article and had to follow strict optimization rules?

Can the Internet Replace Books?

That being said, one would tend to believe that books are the ultimate research tool and that the Internet can cover any subject only to a certain extent. That is not necessarily true though.

Again, the topic dictates the ideal research tool more than anything else. 

For example, if you’re looking to learn how to cook better or simply want to try out new recipes from time to time, the Internet is probably the only place you will ever need to look from now on. The amount of information about cooking available online renders most cookbooks rather useless nowadays, especially if we take into account that the information is available online in different formats, which also includes video.

Why would you read how to cook a dish when you can watch that dish being cooked and learn this way?

On the other hand, the Internet won’t be as effective as a learning tool if you want to learn a more complex activity such as trading. The more complicated the skill you want to learn or the task you want to accomplish, the better off you are doing your research from actual books rather than the Internet.

Then again, there are certain topics however that give you no choice, where research from books vs the Internet research is a battle that is lost by books before it even starts. 

I am referring to novelty subjects such as cryptocurrencies, digital marketing, app development. Since these topics are rather recent and became popular as books decreased in popularity, chances are you’re better off searching for information / tutorials online than in a library, simply because very few (or none) books have been written about them.

As you can see, and as I mentioned earlier, there is no definitive answer for this “reading books vs Internet” debate when it comes to doing research. The topic is the most important and decisive factor.

Why Are Textbooks Better Than the Internet?

When it comes to school learning though, despite the obvious benefits of also having access to the Internet, learning from books or textbooks is essential. Why?

First of all, because all textbooks are written by professionals, not by ghost writers or content writers. If you really want to learn about statistics for example, the better choice is, obviously, to use a textbook. It is written by a statistics professor who spent his life learning and teaching this subject. 

Another important aspect of textbooks and another reason why they are a much better learning tool in school is that they were structured in a specific way that allows you to better grasp the concepts and to understand and learn the subject. 

Their authors feed you information progressively, building your knowledge from the bottom up, in a manner and a rhythm that has been optimized over decades of experience teaching that specific subject. 

No online resource can replace that. The Internet can be a great supplement though. For those who want to learn more than what’s in the textbook, the Internet could be a good place to gather additional information. 

Do We Learn More on the Internet Than From Books?

Well, nobody really knows. Over the past decades, many things shifted towards the online environment, including education. Even though most of the school learning is still done with textbooks, the ratio of Internet vs books research tends to favor the former.

If we take into consideration how often we open up a browser to search for information and compare it with how often each of us opens a book to get that same information, it’s probably safe to assume that we do most of our learning online.

That is not necessarily a good thing though. As I mentioned, we can’t always believe everything we read on the Internet and we don’t always find correct or accurate information about the topic we’re interested in. Moreover, the information about any topic we find online barely scratches the surface of that particular subject when compared to a book.

Bottom Line

All in all, there shouldn’t really be a battle of books vs the Internet. We believe that the best results when it comes to research is combining the two rather than sticking to only one. Combining book reading with online research is bound to yield the best results. And considering how easy that becomes when you use a reading tracker app like Basmo , why wouldn’t you?

Getting the best of both worlds is incredibly easy. Basmo is an app available both on iOS and Android devices, designed for book lovers who want to take their hobby further. 

Basmo allows you to:

• Take notes while reading , which is especially useful whenever you read to learn rather than for pleasure. And since the app is already on your mobile device, combining the information you find online with what you find in the books becomes extremely easy.
• Scan book pages and save important information as notes or quotes, which again can make your life a lot easier when combining online research with book reading
• Create reading lists , which makes it a lot easier to line up all the books you want to read, in the order you want or have to read them
• Analyze your time spent reading , raising your awareness in regards to your reading habits and reading speed
• Set reading goals , a schedule and reminders , allowing you to become a more organized and efficient reader, regardless whether you do it for learning or for pleasure

Ready for the world’s first AI Chatbot for books? Start a chat with any book!

Get Basmo to experience the power of ChatGPT!

School vector created by pch.vector – www.freepik.com

Related Posts

How to Develop a Reading Habit and Why Should You?

The Best Reading Journal Ideas You Should Know Today

28 Benefits of Reading Books You Should Be Aware Of

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The only AI chatbot for books in the world!

Instantly learn anything from any book with ChatGPT

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Ten Reasons Libraries Are Still Better Than the Internet

By Marcus Banks | December 19, 2017

“Thanks to the internet, we no longer need libraries or librarians.” You most likely hear some variation on that theme pretty regularly.

Sixteen years ago, American Libraries published Mark Y. Herring’s essay “Ten Reasons Why the Internet Is No Substitute for a Library” (April 2001). Technology has improved exponentially since then—social media didn’t even exist yet. But even the smartest phone’s intelligence is limited by paywalls, Twitter trolls, fake news, and other hazards of online life. Here are 10 reasons why libraries are still better than the internet.

• Libraries are safer spaces. The internet brings people together, often in enjoyable and productive ways, such as over shared interests (pop culture blogs, fanfic sites) or common challenges (online support groups). But cyberbullying and trolling can leave people reluctant to engage with folks they disagree with or to share their ideas in the first place. Libraries are places where people can gather constructively and all are welcome.
• Libraries respect history. Web pages are ephemeral, and link rot is a real problem. The content of library collections is much more stable. Printed materials are generally published on acid-free paper, which will not disintegrate. And librarians are leading the way to bring similar stability to the web through services like the Internet Archive and perma.cc .
• Librarians digitize influential primary sources. While looking at historical artifacts is valuable, repeated physical handling can damage them. Making digital versions of important works available online—as in the National Library of Medicine’s Turning the Pages project —is one solution. Library digitization projects also provide information to people who do not have the resources to travel to a particular library. Librarians are using the emerging technology of the internet to further the timeless mission of providing better access to information. The internet is the platform that enables this progress, but librarians are doing the work.
• Librarians are leaders in increasing online access to scholarly information. The open access movement makes scholarly articles available to all readers online, and librarians have been strong advocates of the movement for more than a decade. This access is especially critical when reporting the results of medical research, which is often funded by taxpayer dollars.
• Librarians are publishers. Scholarly publishers still provide the journals and books that researchers develop. But librarians have joined these efforts by becoming publishers themselves. New librarian-led publishing initiatives take full advantage of the web and generally make new work available on an open access basis. One example of library publishing, which is common in academic libraries, is the institutional repository . These repositories collect and preserve the broad range of a college or university’s intellectual output, such as datasets gathered in research studies, computer code used in software development, and conference proceedings.
• Libraries host makerspaces. Given that makerspaces provide venues for creativity, learning, and community, it only makes sense that libraries champion them. The maker movement has grown rapidly— in 2016 there were 14 times as many makerspaces as in 2006 . Both public and academic libraries host makerspaces . You can learn about makerspaces online, of course. But to visit one you have to venture into the physical world.
• Librarians can help you sort the real news from the fake. While a plethora of useful, accurate, and engaging content is available online, the web is filled with inaccurate and misleading information. “Click bait” headlines get you to click on the content even if the underlying information is superficial or inaccurate. Misinformation is the spread of deliberate falsehoods or inflammatory content online, such as the Russian-backed ads placed on social media during the 2016 US presidential election . Librarianship has always been about providing objective, accurate, and engaging information that meets the needs of a particular person. This has not changed, and it is why librarians are experts in information literacy .
• Librarians guide you to exactly what you need. Google is an impressive search engine, but its results can be overwhelming, and many people do not know to filter them by content type (such as .pdf) or website source (such as .gov). Google offers many search tips , which are useful but generic. A conversation with a librarian can clarify exactly what you are looking for and figure out the best way to use Google—or many other resources—to find it.
• Librarians do not track your reading or search history to sell you things. Amazon’s book purchase recommendation feature is useful for learning about new books. But this usefulness comes at the expense of your privacy because your reading data is valuable business intelligence for Amazon. The same is true for your web searching history, which is why you often see ads for a product for weeks after searching for it just once. Librarians value and protect your privacy .
• Librarians do not censor. One core value of librarianship, as exemplified by the work of ALA’s Freedom to Read Foundation , is thwarting censorship and allowing the free and full exchange of ideas. The internet is a powerful tool for information sharing, but it takes human advocates to stand for information freedom.

Libraries continue to provide benefits that are both tangible—such as community spaces and human interaction—and harder to quantify—access, privacy, intellectual freedom. The internet is an indispensable and irreplaceable tool for modern living. But it is not a library and will not replace the work of librarians.

MARCUS BANKS is a journalist with prior experience as an academic library administrator.

Tagged Under

• information literacy
• intellectual freedom
• makerspaces
• open access
• privacy rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fighting Fake News

How libraries can lead the way on media literacy.

Libraries and the Art of Everything Maintenance

Hosting repair events reduces waste, brings in new patrons.

• Board Members
• Management Team
• Become a Contributor
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Code of Ethical Practices

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK

• Search Engines List
• Suggested Reading Library
• Web Directories
• Research Papers
• Industry News

• Become a Member
• Associate Membership
• Certified Membership
• Membership Application
• Corporate Application

• CIRS Certification Program
• CIRS Certification Objectives
• CIRS Certification Benefits
• CIRS Certification Exam
• Maintain Your Certification

• Upcoming Events
• Live Classes
• Classes Schedule
• Webinars Schedules

• Latest Articles
• Internet Research
• Search Techniques
• Research Methods
• Business Research
• Search Engines
• Research & Tools
• Investigative Research
• Internet Search
• Work from Home
• Internet Ethics
• Internet Privacy

Books Vs Internet Research (What’s Better?)

The internet has always been our go-to source for fast information. The internet provides information at the appropriate time, unlike books that'll require you to search thoroughly. The internet experience cannot be compared to reading books. Books are a slow process compared to the internet. You tend not to forget anything because you visualize ideas as you read.

Reading books and the internet has their different rewards. It is determined by the topic, the time frame you have to spend, and how deep the research is.

Reading Books for Research

Books are known as learning tools. Students in colleges must read books to support their research. The following are the advantages of reading books:

• Books cover the topic you intend to find on the internet. There is no subject area you're researching that books don't cater to.
• Books don't stress your eyes. You don't have to squint your eyes as you do on the internet. You can spend more time researching, and yet you won't get tired.
• Books are convenient. You can pick it up any day and anytime without worrying.

The disadvantages of books over the internet include:

• Books take a long time during the book research process.
• You might spend more using books. It all depends on the topic you're targeting.
• You might not be free to take books everywhere you go. Books are inconvenient.
• Research books are tasking. On the other hand, the internet is a fast means of doing research.

Reading the Internet for Research

• The internet is cheaper, and you have the opportunity to explore.
• The internet is faster. It only requires an internet connection .

The disadvantages of the internet over book research are

• Not everything on the internet is worthwhile. As a student, the internet has information that shouldn't be believed. There are usually different schools of thought.
• The information online is usually quick and not well-structured.

 The means to use for your research as a college student depends on how deep your research is.

Why is book research better than Internet Research ?

In a contest between books and the internet, books will always prevail. Although it may be quicker and less expensive, the internet also has the potential to lead people astray. For instance, if you search for "how to start a company idea," the results on the internet will vary. There will be a variety of information in the search results from various blogs. However, they won't go into great detail about what you want to understand.

Experts write books in the field you're trying to learn from. Professionals with a wealth of knowledge write them. All information in books is of great value and is carefully written.

Professional content writers usually write information on the internet. They spend time doing research and coming up with content. Online content is optimized for readability. The contents might not be information-rich.

Live Classes Schedule

World's leading professional association of Internet Research Specialists - We deliver Knowledge, Education, Training, and Certification in the field of Professional Online Research. The AOFIRS is considered a major contributor in improving Web Search Skills and recognizes Online Research work as a full-time occupation for those that use the Internet as their primary source of information.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Advertising Opportunities
• Knowledge Network

Publishing Perspectives

• Submit Rights Deal

Books vs. Internet: Whose Information Is More Accurate?

In Discussion by Hannah Johnson October 25, 2011

By Hannah Johnson

Roger Tagholm reports on a makeshift library called Star Books (named for a nearby Starbucks) that has been set up at the Occupy London protest site near St. Paul’s Cathedral. Speaking about why he set up the library at the protest site, Ashley Bignall says, “I think a lot of young people get their information from the internet, but if you want to check something factual, it’s important to see it in a book.”

Another Star Books patron, seventeen-year-old Francis Haseldon said, “I think people are gradually dissociating more from books which is a shame. I think the act of reading makes you think — you confront ideas and opinions. I love the idea of the Occupy Library — a permanent place where people can interact with new ideas, or look at old ideas in a new way.”

So, are print books and the finite nature of the printed page a better source of information than the shifting sands of the internet? The “books vs. internet” argument is not new, nor has it seen a shortage of advocates for both sides.

While books have earned a trusted spot in our culture as legitimate sources of information, having been vetted by an entire network of people, the internet does not always have that same quality assurance — but it does have the wisdom of the crowds, relying that at least one reader will catch and point out the mistakes.

So tell us, do you trust books or the internet for information?

About the Author

Hannah johnson.

Hannah Johnson is the publisher of international book industry magazine Publishing Perspectives, which provides daily information and news about book markets around the world. In addition to building partnerships with international cultural and trade organizations, she works with the Frankfurt Book Fair to organize and support a number of its overseas initiatives. Hannah has also worked as the managing editor for an online media company, The Hooch Life, focused on craft distillers and cocktail experts. Prior to that, she worked as a project manager for the Frankfurt Book Fair’s New York office, managing various business and marketing activities.

April 11, 2013

15 min read

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens

E-readers and tablets are becoming more popular as such technologies improve, but research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages

By Ferris Jabr

Getty Images

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In a viral YouTube video from October 2011 a one-year-old girl sweeps her fingers across an iPad's touchscreen, shuffling groups of icons. In the following scenes she appears to pinch, swipe and prod the pages of paper magazines as though they too were screens. When nothing happens, she pushes against her leg, confirming that her finger works just fine—or so a title card would have us believe. The girl's father, Jean-Louis Constanza , presents "A Magazine Is an iPad That Does Not Work" as naturalistic observation—a Jane Goodall among the chimps moment—that reveals a generational transition. "Technology codes our minds," he writes in the video's description. "Magazines are now useless and impossible to understand, for digital natives"—that is, for people who have been interacting with digital technologies from a very early age. Perhaps his daughter really did expect the paper magazines to respond the same way an iPad would. Or maybe she had no expectations at all—maybe she just wanted to touch the magazines. Babies touch everything . Young children who have never seen a tablet like the iPad or an e-reader like the Kindle will still reach out and run their fingers across the pages of a paper book; they will jab at an illustration they like; heck, they will even taste the corner of a book. Today's so-called digital natives still interact with a mix of paper magazines and books, as well as tablets, smartphones and e-readers; using one kind of technology does not preclude them from understanding another. Nevertheless, the video brings into focus an important question: How exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read? How reading on screens differs from reading on paper is relevant not just to the youngest among us , but to just about everyone who reads—to anyone who routinely switches between working long hours in front of a computer at the office and leisurely reading paper magazines and books at home; to people who have embraced e-readers for their convenience and portability, but admit that for some reason they still prefer reading on paper; and to those who have already vowed to forgo tree pulp entirely. As digital texts and technologies become more prevalent, we gain new and more mobile ways of reading—but are we still reading as attentively and thoroughly? How do our brains respond differently to onscreen text than to words on paper? Should we be worried about dividing our attention between pixels and ink or is the validity of such concerns paper-thin? Since at least the 1980s researchers in many different fields—including psychology, computer engineering, and library and information science—have investigated such questions in more than one hundred published studies. The matter is by no means settled. Before 1992 most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. Studies published since the early 1990s , however, have produced more inconsistent results: a slight majority has confirmed earlier conclusions, but almost as many have found few significant differences in reading speed or comprehension between paper and screens. And recent surveys suggest that although most people still prefer paper—especially when reading intensively—attitudes are changing as tablets and e-reading technology improve and reading digital books for facts and fun becomes more common. In the U.S., e-books currently make up between 15 and 20 percent of all trade book sales. Even so, evidence from laboratory experiments , polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension. Compared with paper, screens may also drain more of our mental resources while we are reading and make it a little harder to remember what we read when we are done. A parallel line of research focuses on people's attitudes toward different kinds of media. Whether they realize it or not, many people approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conducive to learning than the one they bring to paper.

"There is physicality in reading," says developmental psychologist and cognitive scientist Maryanne Wolf of Tufts University, "maybe even more than we want to think about as we lurch into digital reading—as we move forward perhaps with too little reflection. I would like to preserve the absolute best of older forms, but know when to use the new." Navigating textual landscapes Understanding how reading on paper is different from reading on screens requires some explanation of how the brain interprets written language. We often think of reading as a cerebral activity concerned with the abstract—with thoughts and ideas, tone and themes, metaphors and motifs. As far as our brains are concerned, however, text is a tangible part of the physical world we inhabit. In fact, the brain essentially regards letters as physical objects because it does not really have another way of understanding them. As Wolf explains in her book Proust and the Squid , we are not born with brain circuits dedicated to reading. After all, we did not invent writing until relatively recently in our evolutionary history, around the fourth millennium B.C. So the human brain improvises a brand-new circuit for reading by weaving together various regions of neural tissue devoted to other abilities, such as spoken language, motor coordination and vision. Some of these repurposed brain regions are specialized for object recognition —they are networks of neurons that help us instantly distinguish an apple from an orange, for example, yet classify both as fruit. Just as we learn that certain features—roundness, a twiggy stem, smooth skin—characterize an apple, we learn to recognize each letter by its particular arrangement of lines, curves and hollow spaces. Some of the earliest forms of writing, such as Sumerian cuneiform , began as characters shaped like the objects they represented —a person's head, an ear of barley, a fish. Some researchers see traces of these origins in modern alphabets: C as crescent moon, S as snake. Especially intricate characters—such as Chinese hanzi and Japanese kanji —activate motor regions in the brain involved in forming those characters on paper: The brain literally goes through the motions of writing when reading, even if the hands are empty. Researchers recently discovered that the same thing happens in a milder way when some people read cursive. Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies , people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters. In most cases, paper books have more obvious topography than onscreen text. An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains—the left and right pages—and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. Turning the pages of a paper book is like leaving one footprint after another on the trail—there's a rhythm to it and a visible record of how far one has traveled. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text. In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase—but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination—sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations—the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead. "The implicit feel of where you are in a physical book turns out to be more important than we realized," says Abigail Sellen of Microsoft Research Cambridge in England and co-author of The Myth of the Paperless Office . "Only when you get an e-book do you start to miss it. I don't think e-book manufacturers have thought enough about how you might visualize where you are in a book." At least a few studies suggest that by limiting the way people navigate texts, screens impair comprehension. In a study published in January 2013 Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and her colleagues asked 72 10th-grade students of similar reading ability to study one narrative and one expository text, each about 1,500 words in length. Half the students read the texts on paper and half read them in pdf files on computers with 15-inch liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors. Afterward, students completed reading-comprehension tests consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, during which they had access to the texts. Students who read the texts on computers performed a little worse than students who read on paper. Based on observations during the study, Mangen thinks that students reading pdf files had a more difficult time finding particular information when referencing the texts. Volunteers on computers could only scroll or click through the pdfs one section at a time, whereas students reading on paper could hold the text in its entirety in their hands and quickly switch between different pages. Because of their easy navigability, paper books and documents may be better suited to absorption in a text. "The ease with which you can find out the beginning, end and everything inbetween and the constant connection to your path, your progress in the text, might be some way of making it less taxing cognitively, so you have more free capacity for comprehension," Mangen says. Supporting this research, surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other important aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control. People report that they enjoy flipping to a previous section of a paper book when a sentence surfaces a memory of something they read earlier, for example, or quickly scanning ahead on a whim. People also like to have as much control over a text as possible—to highlight with chemical ink, easily write notes to themselves in the margins as well as deform the paper however they choose. Because of these preferences—and because getting away from multipurpose screens improves concentration—people consistently say that when they really want to dive into a text, they read it on paper. In a 2011 survey of graduate students at National Taiwan University, the majority reported browsing a few paragraphs online before printing out the whole text for more in-depth reading. A 2008 survey of millennials (people born between 1980 and the early 2000s) at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island concluded that, "when it comes to reading a book, even they prefer good, old-fashioned print". And in a 2003 study conducted at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, nearly 80 percent of 687 surveyed students preferred to read text on paper as opposed to on a screen in order to "understand it with clarity". Surveys and consumer reports also suggest that the sensory experiences typically associated with reading—especially tactile experiences—matter to people more than one might assume. Text on a computer, an e-reader and—somewhat ironically—on any touch-screen device is far more intangible than text on paper. Whereas a paper book is made from pages of printed letters fixed in a particular arrangement, the text that appears on a screen is not part of the device's hardware—it is an ephemeral image. When reading a paper book, one can feel the paper and ink and smooth or fold a page with one's fingers; the pages make a distinctive sound when turned; and underlining or highlighting a sentence with ink permanently alters the paper's chemistry. So far, digital texts have not satisfyingly replicated this kind of tactility (although some companies are innovating, at least with keyboards ). Paper books also have an immediately discernible size, shape and weight. We might refer to a hardcover edition of War and Peace as a hefty tome or a paperback Heart of Darkness as a slim volume. In contrast, although a digital text has a length—which is sometimes represented with a scroll or progress bar—it has no obvious shape or thickness. An e-reader always weighs the same, regardless of whether you are reading Proust's magnum opus or one of Hemingway's short stories. Some researchers have found that these discrepancies create enough " haptic dissonance " to dissuade some people from using e-readers. People expect books to look, feel and even smell a certain way; when they do not, reading sometimes becomes less enjoyable or even unpleasant. For others, the convenience of a slim portable e-reader outweighs any attachment they might have to the feel of paper books. Exhaustive reading Although many old and recent studies conclude that people understand what they read on paper more thoroughly than what they read on screens, the differences are often small. Some experiments, however, suggest that researchers should look not just at immediate reading comprehension, but also at long-term memory. In a 2003 study Kate Garland of the University of Leicester and her colleagues asked 50 British college students to read study material from an introductory economics course either on a computer monitor or in a spiral-bound booklet. After 20 minutes of reading Garland and her colleagues quizzed the students with multiple-choice questions. Students scored equally well regardless of the medium, but differed in how they remembered the information. Psychologists distinguish between remembering something—which is to recall a piece of information along with contextual details, such as where, when and how one learned it—and knowing something, which is feeling that something is true without remembering how one learned the information. Generally, remembering is a weaker form of memory that is likely to fade unless it is converted into more stable, long-term memory that is "known" from then on. When taking the quiz, volunteers who had read study material on a monitor relied much more on remembering than on knowing, whereas students who read on paper depended equally on remembering and knowing. Garland and her colleagues think that students who read on paper learned the study material more thoroughly more quickly; they did not have to spend a lot of time searching their minds for information from the text, trying to trigger the right memory—they often just knew the answers. Other researchers have suggested that people comprehend less when they read on a screen because screen-based reading is more physically and mentally taxing than reading on paper. E-ink is easy on the eyes because it reflects ambient light just like a paper book, but computer screens, smartphones and tablets like the iPad shine light directly into people's faces. Depending on the model of the device, glare, pixilation and flickers can also tire the eyes. LCDs are certainly gentler on eyes than their predecessor, cathode-ray tubes (CRT), but prolonged reading on glossy self-illuminated screens can cause eyestrain, headaches and blurred vision. Such symptoms are so common among people who read on screens—affecting around 70 percent of people who work long hours in front of computers—that the American Optometric Association officially recognizes computer vision syndrome . Erik Wästlund of Karlstad University in Sweden has conducted some particularly rigorous research on whether paper or screens demand more physical and cognitive resources. In one of his experiments 72 volunteers completed the Higher Education Entrance Examination READ test—a 30-minute, Swedish-language reading-comprehension exam consisting of multiple-choice questions about five texts averaging 1,000 words each. People who took the test on a computer scored lower and reported higher levels of stress and tiredness than people who completed it on paper. In another set of experiments 82 volunteers completed the READ test on computers, either as a paginated document or as a continuous piece of text. Afterward researchers assessed the students' attention and working memory, which is a collection of mental talents that allow people to temporarily store and manipulate information in their minds. Volunteers had to quickly close a series of pop-up windows, for example, sort virtual cards or remember digits that flashed on a screen. Like many cognitive abilities, working memory is a finite resource that diminishes with exertion. Although people in both groups performed equally well on the READ test, those who had to scroll through the continuous text did not do as well on the attention and working-memory tests. Wästlund thinks that scrolling—which requires a reader to consciously focus on both the text and how they are moving it—drains more mental resources than turning or clicking a page, which are simpler and more automatic gestures. A 2004 study conducted at the University of Central Florida reached similar conclusions. Attitude adjustments An emerging collection of studies emphasizes that in addition to screens possibly taxing people's attention more than paper, people do not always bring as much mental effort to screens in the first place. Subconsciously, many people may think of reading on a computer or tablet as a less serious affair than reading on paper. Based on a detailed 2005 survey of 113 people in northern California, Ziming Liu of San Jose State University concluded that people reading on screens take a lot of shortcuts—they spend more time browsing, scanning and hunting for keywords compared with people reading on paper, and are more likely to read a document once, and only once. When reading on screens, people seem less inclined to engage in what psychologists call metacognitive learning regulation—strategies such as setting specific goals, rereading difficult sections and checking how much one has understood along the way. In a 2011 experiment at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, college students took multiple-choice exams about expository texts either on computers or on paper. Researchers limited half the volunteers to a meager seven minutes of study time; the other half could review the text for as long as they liked. When under pressure to read quickly, students using computers and paper performed equally well. When managing their own study time, however, volunteers using paper scored about 10 percentage points higher. Presumably, students using paper approached the exam with a more studious frame of mind than their screen-reading peers, and more effectively directed their attention and working memory. Perhaps, then, any discrepancies in reading comprehension between paper and screens will shrink as people's attitudes continue to change. The star of "A Magazine Is an iPad That Does Not Work" is three-and-a-half years old today and no longer interacts with paper magazines as though they were touchscreens, her father says. Perhaps she and her peers will grow up without the subtle bias against screens that seems to lurk in the minds of older generations. In current research for Microsoft, Sellen has learned that many people do not feel much ownership of e-books because of their impermanence and intangibility: "They think of using an e-book, not owning an e-book," she says. Participants in her studies say that when they really like an electronic book, they go out and get the paper version. This reminds Sellen of people's early opinions of digital music, which she has also studied. Despite initial resistance, people love curating, organizing and sharing digital music today. Attitudes toward e-books may transition in a similar way, especially if e-readers and tablets allow more sharing and social interaction than they currently do. Books on the Kindle can only be loaned once , for example. To date, many engineers, designers and user-interface experts have worked hard to make reading on an e-reader or tablet as close to reading on paper as possible. E-ink resembles chemical ink and the simple layout of the Kindle's screen looks like a page in a paperback. Likewise, Apple's iBooks attempts to simulate the overall aesthetic of paper books, including somewhat realistic page-turning. Jaejeung Kim of KAIST Institute of Information Technology Convergence in South Korea and his colleagues have designed an innovative and unreleased interface that makes iBooks seem primitive. When using their interface, one can see the many individual pages one has read on the left side of the tablet and all the unread pages on the right side, as if holding a paperback in one's hands. A reader can also flip bundles of pages at a time with a flick of a finger. But why, one could ask, are we working so hard to make reading with new technologies like tablets and e-readers so similar to the experience of reading on the very ancient technology that is paper? Why not keep paper and evolve screen-based reading into something else entirely? Screens obviously offer readers experiences that paper cannot. Scrolling may not be the ideal way to navigate a text as long and dense as Moby Dick , but the New York Times , Washington Post , ESPN and other media outlets have created beautiful, highly visual articles that depend entirely on scrolling and could not appear in print in the same way. Some Web comics and infographics turn scrolling into a strength rather than a weakness. Similarly, Robin Sloan has pioneered the tap essay for mobile devices. The immensely popular interactive Scale of the Universe tool could not have been made on paper in any practical way. New e-publishing companies like Atavist offer tablet readers long-form journalism with embedded interactive graphics, maps, timelines, animations and sound tracks. And some writers are pairing up with computer programmers to produce ever more sophisticated interactive fiction and nonfiction in which one's choices determine what one reads, hears and sees next. When it comes to intensively reading long pieces of plain text, paper and ink may still have the advantage. But text is not the only way to read.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1: Defining “The Library” and “The Internet-” An Introduction

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 6475

• Steven D. Krause
• Eastern Michigan University

You might think the answers to the questions “what is a library?” and “what is the Internet?” are pretty obvious. But actually, it is easy to get them confused, and there are a number of research resources that are a bit of both: library materials available over the Internet or Internet resources available in the library.

Understanding the differences between the library and the Internet and knowing where your research comes from is crucial in the process of research writing because research that is available from libraries (either in print of electronic form) is generally considered more reliable and credible than research available only over the Internet. Most of the publications in libraries (particularly in academic libraries) have gone through some sort of review process. They have been read and examined by editors, other writers, critics, experts in the field, and librarians.

In contrast, anyone with appropriate access to the Internet can put up a Web page about almost anything without anyone else being involved in the process: no editors, other writers, critics, experts, or anyone else review the credibility or reliability of the evidence.

However, the line between what counts as library research and what counts as Internet research is becoming blurred. Plenty of reliable and credible Internet-based research resources are available: online academic and popular journals, Web-based versions of online newspapers, the homepages of experts in a particular field, and so forth.

Let’s begin with the basics of understanding the differences between libraries and the Internet.

Libraries are buildings that house and catalog books, magazines, journals, microfilm, maps, government documents, and other resources. It would be surprising if you attended a community college, college, or university that did not have a library, and it would be equally surprising if your school’s library wasn’t a prominent and important building on campus.

As you might expect, libraries at community colleges, colleges, and universities tend to specialize in scholarly materials, while public libraries tend to specialize in non-scholarly materials. You are more likely to find People magazine or the latest best-selling novels in a public library and a journal like College English and scholarly books in a college library.

Many universities have different libraries based on distinctions like who tends to use them (“graduate” or “undergraduate” libraries) or based on specific subject matter collected within that particular library (education, social work, law, or medicine). Almost all college and university libraries also have collections of “special items,” which include items like rare books, maps, and government documents.

While we tend to see the library as a “place,” most people see the Internet as something less physically tangible (though still somehow a “place”). Basically, the Internet is the international network of computers that makes things like email, the World Wide Web, blogs, and online chat possible. In the early 1970s, the beginnings of the Internet (then known as “ARPANET”) consisted of about a half-dozen computers located at research universities in the United States. Today, the Internet is made up of tens of millions of computers in almost every part of the world. The World Wide Web appeared in the mid-1990s and has dramatically changed the Internet. The Web and the Web-reading software called “browsers” (Internet Explorer and Netscape, for example) have made it possible for users to view or “surf” a rich mix of Web pages with text, graphics, animations, and video.

Almost all universities, colleges, and community colleges in the United States provide students and faculty with access to the Internet so they can use email and the World Wide Web, or even so they can publish Web pages. Millions of people both in and out of school have access to the Internet through “Internet Service Providers,” which are companies both large and small that provide customers access to the ‘net for a monthly fee.

An enormous variety of information, text, and media are available to almost anyone via the Internet: discussion groups, books available for download or for online reading, journal and magazine articles, music and video clips, virtual “rooms” for live “chats.”

In the simplest sense, the differences between libraries and the Internet is clear: buildings, books, magazines, and other physical materials, versus computers everywhere connected via networks, the World Wide Web, and other electronic, digitized, or “virtual” materials.

However, in practice, these differences are not always so clear.

F irst, almost all university, college, and community college libraries provide patrons access to the Internet on their campuses. Being able to access almost anything that is available on the Internet at computers in your library has the effect of blurring the border between library and non-library resources. And just because you happened to find your research on a Web page while you were physically in the library obviously doesn’t make your Web-based research as credible as the materials housed within the library.

Second, many libraries use the Internet or the World Wide Web to provide access to electronic databases, some of which even contain “full text” versions of print publications. This will be covered in more detail in the next section of this chapter, “Finding Research in the Library: An Overview;” however, generally speaking, the research from these resources (even though it looks a lot like what you might find on a variety of Internet-based Web pages) is considered as reliable and credible as more traditional print sources.

Third, most libraries allow for patrons to search their collections via the Internet. With an adequate Internet connection, you don’t have to actually go to the library to use the library.

The point is that while some obvious differences still exist between research you find in the library versus research you find on the Internet, there are many interesting similarities and points where the library and the Internet are actually one in the same.

Evaluating Research: Library vs. Internet

• Library vs. Internet
• Evaluating Journals
• Evaluating Websites
• Fake or Real?
• Fair or Biased?
• Get Research Help
• Citation Help
• Evaluating Information Video

What Type of Information are You Looking For?

Selecting a library database vs. the internet depends on the type of information you need to find.  If you want some quick background information, Wikipedia is fast and easy, it is a great source for background information, and to lead you to citations, but it is not the source you want to base a paper on.  For many assignments you will use a range of materials, books, journal articles, newspapers, archival sources, and websites. 

WHY? Rationale for Evaluating What You Find on the Web

Information on the web is abundant, and anyone can put it there. You can find "proof" of any belief system you can imagine.  If you are using a website as a source in your paper or project, you need to think critically about where that information is coming from.

You don't want to base your paper off a biased opinion or cite a website that's simply a mask for advertising.  

Instead, you want to find credible, up-to-date, relevant information that's written by an expert or an authority on the topic, whose claims are based on fact and supported by evidence. 

To learn how to separate the good information from the not-so-good or downright bad information that you might come across on-line, review the next tab and use the C.R.A.A.P. Test to evaluate a website.

 Fitz & Pirillo. (2006).  Image: The Whole Internet Truth

Considerations About the Web

Not Everything is on the Internet

The web contains at least over a billion web pages.  Even with that amount of information, only 8% of all scholarly journals are on the web.  Even though the information is FREE on the Internet, journal information is sometimes not. You have to pay.

The Needle (Your Search) in the Haystack (the Web)

The World Wide Web is a vast uncatalogued library.  Whatever search engine you use, you are not searching the entire web.  Unbelievable yes, but websites are not all websites are updated frequently, nor daily, weekly or even monthly.  Sometimes searches can be a huge waste of time because you cannot find relevant information for your paper.

Quality Control Does Not Exist

The Internet is not going away, and will continue to grow, but in addition to all of the scientific, medical, and historical (if accurate) information that is on the web, a lot of it is junk and inferior to what you can find in a library database.  Anyone can publish a website.

Sources on the Internet are Harder to Identify

Yes, full-text articles can be found on the web, but sometimes they are missing information you need for your own research, such as: footnotes, tables, graphs and formulae.  It is also sometimes difficult to tell who is the author of a site.  In a library journal, you will have the exact location of your information cited. Showing that exact location in your citation is required.  See Stonehill’s Citation Guide .  Information on the web can change or disappear overnight, information in a database cannot.  See also Stonehill’s Academic Integrity Policy on why you should be citing your sources.

Library On-Line Resources are Available 24/7

Online databases can be accessed 24 hours a day 7 days a week from the library’s webpage. These databases are in the library’s collection and can be accessed on campus and remotely with your Student ID. This is not to be confused with searching the Internet.

For a complete list of Library Databases click here .

Tuition and Fees Pay for Library Use

Library resources are paid for with your tuition and fees, so take advantage of it.  Libraries provide free access to scholarly books, journals, newspapers, encyclopedias, and other print reference sources.  A lot of information on the Internet is FREE, except scholarly materials.  A paid subscription is required to access.

Trained Professionals are Available for Assistance

Knowledgeable and friendly librarians are available to assist with locating information in person, chat, e-mail or telephone. Request assistance at the beginning of your research and spare yourself valuable time spent on the Internet.

E-Books are Available

E-books are full-text and searchable. Text can be searched automatically, and cross-referenced using hyperlinks.  Dictionaries, reference works, and some textbooks, benefit from search and cross-reference capabilities.  Content is available 24/7.  Please visit Stonehill’s Catalog .

The Internet Has Fewer Archival Materials

The Internet is actually not that old.  The library has older materials than the Internet, including Archived materials.  You would be pressed to find information that is older than 10-15 years old.  The Internet provides more timely information because it is changing constantly.  If students are interested in archived materials, which can be great primary sources, please see Archives at Stonehill.

Libraries vs. the Internet

The Web is not a universal library.  The library is a wealth of knowledge and information.  Stonehill provides access to that knowledge and information.

  Adapted from the article:  Herring, Mark. (2001, April). 10 Reasons Why the Internet Is No Substitute for a Library.  American Libraries . p. 76-78.  Tennessee State University Library Information Literacy Information.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Evaluating Journals >>
• Last Updated: Sep 11, 2023 10:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.stonehill.edu/evaluate

Search form

A for and against essay about the internet.

Look at the essay and do the exercises to improve your writing skills.

Instructions

Do the preparation exercise first. Then read the text and do the other exercises.

Preparation

Check your writing: grouping - ideas

Check your writing: gap fill - useful phrases, worksheets and downloads.

What's your opinion? Do you think the internet is bad for young people?

Sign up to our newsletter for LearnEnglish Teens

We will process your data to send you our newsletter and updates based on your consent. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of every email. Read our privacy policy for more information.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Internet Vs Newspaper Essay

IELTS Internet vs Newspaper Essay

In this internet vs newspaper essay you have to discuss whether you think reading from newspapers will stay more popular than reading the news online. 

This was a recent question in the IELTS exam. You'll find they pick on topical issues, which is why you should keep up-to-date with the news! 

Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Thinking about the essay

Before you write your internet vs newspaper essay, you should spend some time deciding what your views and opinions are and how you will support them.

You could write about one side of the essay, for example stating that you think newspapers will remain more popular and then writing about the benefits of newspapers. 

But there are two good reasons for making sure you discuss both  reading newspapers  and  reading online .

Firstly as both those issues are mentioned in the questions you don't want the examiner thinking that you haven't fully answered the question . Also, if you discuss both you will have more to write about .

In this model IELTS internet vs newspaper essay that you can read below, the writer believes that online sources will become the most popular. 

The writer supports this by first giving the counter-argument (opposing view) - why newspapers are still popular - but then goes on to explain why this habit will be taken over by online reading. 

Now take a look at the internet vs newspaper essay model answer.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer:

It is common at the present time to see people getting updates on the latest news from the internet rather than the traditional method of reading a newspaper. I would argue that electronic sources of news will gradually replace that of the newspaper. 

Newspapers remain an important source of news for several reasons.  The first of these is that the older generation still prefer to read their news this way, which is because they have traditionally bought a newspaper over the years and so do not wish to change or simply do not know how to do so online in some cases. In addition to this a newspaper also comes with other supplements, such as magazines and television guides, and sources of entertainment, such as crosswords. This makes it more attractive for some than going online.  

However, though newspapers may not disappear completely, the Internet is likely to become the more dominant source of news over time. This is primarily because younger people tend to read the news online and prefer not to pay for it, so those reading newspapers, the older generations, will gradually decline. This links in with the second reason, which is that as media companies start to see a drop income from newspapers, printing them will become unprofitable and they will be forced to find ways to make money from news online. 

In conclusion, although newspapers remain popular today, they will gradually be replaced by the desire to read the news through electronic sources. This may be a sad loss given their history, but unfortunately it is an unavoidable development. 

(265 Words)

This internet vs newspaper essay would score highly in the test as it meets the four criteria required for a good IELTS band score. 

It fully answers the question . The writer clearly sets out their opinion and then goes on to provide support for this.

The essay supports the opinion well as it sets out why people like to read newspapers but then goes on to explain why this will change , with people switching to online reading. The support of the question is specific and ideas are extended and explained. 

The essay is also  well-organised , with a clear introduction, body paragraphs and conclusion. 

Topic sentences lead the reader through the essay and there are good linking devices that are not too mechanical. You don't want things too mechanical if you are looking for a score above band 6. 

Examples of mechanical are  'firstly', 'secondly', 'thirdly' 'for example' . They can be a bit boring and easy. 

It also has some good examples of vocabulary and  collocations  related to the topic, and a good range of  complex sentences .

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 25 April 2024
• Correction 25 April 2024

‘Shut up and calculate’: how Einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality

• Jim Baggott 0

Jim Baggott is a science writer based in Cape Town, South Africa. He is co-author with John Heilbron of Quantum Drama .

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

For entangled particles, a change in one instantly affects the other, no matter how far apart they are. Credit: Volker Steger/SPL

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily successful scientific theory, on which much of our technology-obsessed lifestyles depend. It is also bewildering. Although the theory works, it leaves physicists chasing probabilities instead of certainties and breaks the link between cause and effect. It gives us particles that are waves and waves that are particles , cats that seem to be both alive and dead, and lots of spooky quantum weirdness around hard-to-explain phenomena, such as quantum entanglement.

Myths are also rife. For instance, in the early twentieth century, when the theory’s founders were arguing among themselves about what it all meant, the views of Danish physicist Niels Bohr came to dominate. Albert Einstein famously disagreed with him and, in the 1920s and 1930s, the two locked horns in debate . A persistent myth was created that suggests Bohr won the argument by browbeating the stubborn and increasingly isolated Einstein into submission. Acting like some fanatical priesthood, physicists of Bohr’s ‘church’ sought to shut down further debate. They established the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’, named after the location of Bohr’s institute, as a dogmatic orthodoxy.

My latest book Quantum Drama , co-written with science historian John Heilbron, explores the origins of this myth and its role in motivating the singular personalities that would go on to challenge it. Their persistence in the face of widespread indifference paid off, because they helped to lay the foundations for a quantum-computing industry expected to be worth tens of billions by 2040.

John died on 5 November 2023 , so sadly did not see his last work through to publication. This essay is dedicated to his memory.

Foundational myth

A scientific myth is not produced by accident or error. It requires effort. “To qualify as a myth, a false claim should be persistent and widespread,” Heilbron said in a 2014 conference talk. “It should have a plausible and assignable reason for its endurance, and immediate cultural relevance,” he noted. “Although erroneous or fabulous, such myths are not entirely wrong, and their exaggerations bring out aspects of a situation, relationship or project that might otherwise be ignored.”

Does quantum theory imply the entire Universe is preordained?

To see how these observations apply to the historical development of quantum mechanics, let’s look more closely at the Bohr–Einstein debate. The only way to make sense of the theory, Bohr argued in 1927, was to accept his principle of complementarity. Physicists have no choice but to describe quantum experiments and their results using wholly incompatible, yet complementary, concepts borrowed from classical physics.

In one kind of experiment, an electron, for example, behaves like a classical wave. In another, it behaves like a classical particle. Physicists can observe only one type of behaviour at a time, because there is no experiment that can be devised that could show both behaviours at once.

Bohr insisted that there is no contradiction in complementarity, because the use of these classical concepts is purely symbolic. This was not about whether electrons are really waves or particles. It was about accepting that physicists can never know what an electron really is and that they must reach for symbolic descriptions of waves and particles as appropriate. With these restrictions, Bohr regarded the theory to be complete — no further elaboration was necessary.

Such a pronouncement prompts an important question. What is the purpose of physics? Is its main goal to gain ever-more-detailed descriptions and control of phenomena, regardless of whether physicists can understand these descriptions? Or, rather, is it a continuing search for deeper and deeper insights into the nature of physical reality?

Einstein preferred the second answer, and refused to accept that complementarity could be the last word on the subject. In his debate with Bohr, he devised a series of elaborate thought experiments, in which he sought to demonstrate the theory’s inconsistencies and ambiguities, and its incompleteness. These were intended to highlight matters of principle; they were not meant to be taken literally.

Entangled probabilities

In 1935, Einstein’s criticisms found their focus in a paper 1 published with his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. In their thought experiment (known as EPR, the authors’ initials), a pair of particles (A and B) interact and move apart. Suppose each particle can possess, with equal probability, one of two quantum properties, which for simplicity I will call ‘up’ and ‘down’, measured in relation to some instrument setting. Assuming their properties are correlated by a physical law, if A is measured to be ‘up’, B must be ‘down’, and vice versa. The Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger invented the term entangled to describe this kind of situation.

How Einstein built on the past to make his breakthroughs

If the entangled particles are allowed to move so far apart that they can no longer affect one another, physicists might say that they are no longer in ‘causal contact’. Quantum mechanics predicts that scientists should still be able to measure A and thereby — with certainty — infer the correlated property of B.

But the theory gives us only probabilities. We have no way of knowing in advance what result we will get for A. If A is found to be ‘down’, how does the distant, causally disconnected B ‘know’ how to correlate with its entangled partner and give the result ‘up’? The particles cannot break the correlation, because this would break the physical law that created it.

Physicists could simply assume that, when far enough apart, the particles are separate and distinct, or ‘locally real’, each possessing properties that were fixed at the moment of their interaction. Suppose A sets off towards a measuring instrument carrying the property ‘up’. A devious experimenter is perfectly at liberty to change the instrument setting so that when A arrives, it is now measured to be ‘down’. How, then, is the correlation established? Do the particles somehow remain in contact, sending messages to each other or exerting influences on each other over vast distances at speeds faster than light, in conflict with Einstein’s special theory of relativity?

The alternative possibility, equally discomforting to contemplate, is that the entangled particles do not actually exist independently of each other. They are ‘non-local’, implying that their properties are not fixed until a measurement is made on one of them.

Both these alternatives were unacceptable to Einstein, leading him to conclude that quantum mechanics cannot be complete.

Niels Bohr (left) and Albert Einstein. Credit: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty

The EPR thought experiment delivered a shock to Bohr’s camp, but it was quickly (if unconvincingly) rebuffed by Bohr. Einstein’s challenge was not enough; he was content to criticize the theory but there was no consensus on an alternative to Bohr’s complementarity. Bohr was judged by the wider scientific community to have won the debate and, by the early 1950s, Einstein’s star was waning.

Unlike Bohr, Einstein had established no school of his own. He had rather retreated into his own mind, in vain pursuit of a theory that would unify electromagnetism and gravity, and so eliminate the need for quantum mechanics altogether. He referred to himself as a “lone traveler”. In 1948, US theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer remarked to a reporter at Time magazine that the older Einstein had become “a landmark, but not a beacon”.

Prevailing view

Subsequent readings of this period in quantum history promoted a persistent and widespread suggestion that the Copenhagen interpretation had been established as the orthodox view. I offer two anecdotes as illustration. When learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student at Harvard University in the 1950s, US physicist N. David Mermin recalled vivid memories of the responses that his conceptual enquiries elicited from his professors, whom he viewed as ‘agents of Copenhagen’. “You’ll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted by such frivolities,” they advised him, “so get back to serious business and produce some results. Shut up, in other words, and calculate.”

The spy who flunked it: Kurt Gödel’s forgotten part in the atom-bomb story

It seemed that dissidents faced serious repercussions. When US physicist John Clauser — a pioneer of experimental tests of quantum mechanics in the early 1970s — struggled to find an academic position, he was clear in his own mind about the reasons. He thought he had fallen foul of the ‘religion’ fostered by Bohr and the Copenhagen church: “Any physicist who openly criticized or even seriously questioned these foundations ... was immediately branded as a ‘quack’. Quacks naturally found it difficult to find decent jobs within the profession.”

But pulling on the historical threads suggests a different explanation for both Mermin’s and Clauser’s struggles. Because there was no viable alternative to complementarity, those writing the first post-war student textbooks on quantum mechanics in the late 1940s had little choice but to present (often garbled) versions of Bohr’s theory. Bohr was notoriously vague and more than occasionally incomprehensible. Awkward questions about the theory’s foundations were typically given short shrift. It was more important for students to learn how to apply the theory than to fret about what it meant.

One important exception is US physicist David Bohm’s 1951 book Quantum Theory , which contains an extensive discussion of the theory’s interpretation, including EPR’s challenge. But, at the time, Bohm stuck to Bohr’s mantra.

The Americanization of post-war physics meant that no value was placed on ‘philosophical’ debates that did not yield practical results. The task of ‘getting to the numbers’ meant that there was no time or inclination for the kind of pointless discussion in which Bohr and Einstein had indulged. Pragmatism prevailed. Physicists encouraged their students to choose research topics that were likely to provide them with a suitable grounding for an academic career, or ones that appealed to prospective employers. These did not include research on quantum foundations.

These developments conspired to produce a subtly different kind of orthodoxy. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), US philosopher Thomas Kuhn describes ‘normal’ science as the everyday puzzle-solving activities of scientists in the context of a prevailing ‘paradigm’. This can be interpreted as the foundational framework on which scientific understanding is based. Kuhn argued that researchers pursuing normal science tend to accept foundational theories without question and seek to solve problems within the bounds of these concepts. Only when intractable problems accumulate and the situation becomes intolerable might the paradigm ‘shift’, in a process that Kuhn likened to a political revolution.

Do black holes explode? The 50-year-old puzzle that challenges quantum physics

The prevailing view also defines what kinds of problem the community will accept as scientific and which problems researchers are encouraged (and funded) to investigate. As Kuhn acknowledged in his book: “Other problems, including many that had previously been standard, are rejected as metaphysical, as the concern of another discipline, or sometimes as just too problematic to be worth the time.”

What Kuhn says about normal science can be applied to ‘mainstream’ physics. By the 1950s, the physics community had become broadly indifferent to foundational questions that lay outside the mainstream. Such questions were judged to belong in a philosophy class, and there was no place for philosophy in physics. Mermin’s professors were not, as he had first thought, ‘agents of Copenhagen’. As he later told me, his professors “had no interest in understanding Bohr, and thought that Einstein’s distaste for [quantum mechanics] was just silly”. Instead, they were “just indifferent to philosophy. Full stop. Quantum mechanics worked. Why worry about what it meant?”

It is more likely that Clauser fell foul of the orthodoxy of mainstream physics. His experimental tests of quantum mechanics 2 in 1972 were met with indifference or, more actively, dismissal as junk or fringe science. After all, as expected, quantum mechanics passed Clauser’s tests and arguably nothing new was discovered. Clauser failed to get an academic position not because he had had the audacity to challenge the Copenhagen interpretation; his audacity was in challenging the mainstream. As a colleague told Clauser later, physics faculty members at one university to which he had applied “thought that the whole field was controversial”.

Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger won the 2022 physics Nobel for work on entangled photons. Credit: Claudio Bresciani/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty

However, it’s important to acknowledge that the enduring myth of the Copenhagen interpretation contains grains of truth, too. Bohr had a strong and domineering personality. He wanted to be associated with quantum theory in much the same way that Einstein is associated with theories of relativity. Complementarity was accepted as the last word on the subject by the physicists of Bohr’s school. Most vociferous were Bohr’s ‘bulldog’ Léon Rosenfeld, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg, although all came to hold distinct views about what the interpretation actually meant.

They did seek to shut down rivals. French physicist Louis de Broglie’s ‘pilot wave’ interpretation, which restores causality and determinism in a theory in which real particles are guided by a real wave, was shot down by Pauli in 1927. Some 30 years later, US physicist Hugh Everett’s relative state or many-worlds interpretation was dismissed, as Rosenfeld later described, as “hopelessly wrong ideas”. Rosenfeld added that Everett “was undescribably stupid and could not understand the simplest things in quantum mechanics”.

Unorthodox interpretations

But the myth of the Copenhagen interpretation served an important purpose. It motivated a project that might otherwise have been ignored. Einstein liked Bohm’s Quantum Theory and asked to see him in Princeton in the spring of 1951. Their discussion prompted Bohm to abandon Bohr’s views, and he went on to reinvent de Broglie’s pilot wave theory. He also developed an alternative to the EPR challenge that held the promise of translation into a real experiment.

Befuddled by Bohrian vagueness, finding no solace in student textbooks and inspired by Bohm, Irish physicist John Bell pushed back against the Copenhagen interpretation and, in 1964, built on Bohm’s version of EPR to develop a now-famous theorem 3 . The assumption that the entangled particles A and B are locally real leads to predictions that are incompatible with those of quantum mechanics. This was no longer a matter for philosophers alone: this was about real physics.

It took Clauser three attempts to pass his graduate course on advanced quantum mechanics at Columbia University because his brain “kind of refused to do it”. He blamed Bohr and Copenhagen, found Bohm and Bell, and in 1972 became the first to perform experimental tests of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons 2 .

How to introduce quantum computers without slowing economic growth

French physicist Alain Aspect similarly struggled to discern a “physical world behind the mathematics”, was perplexed by complementarity (“Bohr is impossible to understand”) and found Bell. In 1982, he performed what would become an iconic test of Bell’s theorem 4 , changing the settings of the instruments used to measure the properties of pairs of entangled photons while the particles were mid-flight. This prevented the photons from somehow conspiring to correlate themselves through messages or influences passed between them, because the nature of the measurements to be made on them was not set until they were already too far apart. All these tests settled in favour of quantum mechanics and non-locality.

Although the wider physics community still considered testing quantum mechanics to be a fringe science and mostly a waste of time, exposing a hitherto unsuspected phenomenon — quantum entanglement and non-locality — was not. Aspect’s cause was aided by US physicist Richard Feynman, who in 1981 had published his own version of Bell’s theorem 5 and had speculated on the possibility of building a quantum computer. In 1984, Charles Bennett at IBM and Giles Brassard at the University of Montreal in Canada proposed entanglement as the basis for an innovative system of quantum cryptography 6 .

It is tempting to think that these developments finally helped to bring work on quantum foundations into mainstream physics, making it respectable. Not so. According to Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger, who has helped to found the science of quantum information and its promise of a quantum technology, even those working in quantum information consider foundations to be “not the right thing”. “We don’t understand the reason why. Must be psychological reasons, something like that, something very deep,” Zeilinger says. The lack of any kind of physical mechanism to explain how entanglement works does not prevent the pragmatic physicist from getting to the numbers.

Similarly, by awarding the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics to Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger , the Nobels as an institution have not necessarily become friendly to foundational research. Commenting on the award, the chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics, Anders Irbäck, said: “It has become increasingly clear that a new kind of quantum technology is emerging. We can see that the laureates’ work with entangled states is of great importance, even beyond the fundamental questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics.” Or, rather, their work is of great importance because of the efforts of those few dissidents, such as Bohm and Bell, who were prepared to resist the orthodoxy of mainstream physics, which they interpreted as the enduring myth of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The lesson from Bohr–Einstein and the riddle of entanglement is this. Even if we are prepared to acknowledge the myth, we still need to exercise care. Heilbron warned against wanton slaying: “The myth you slay today may contain a truth you need tomorrow.”

Nature 629 , 29-32 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01216-z

Updates & Corrections

Correction 25 April 2024 : An earlier version of this Essay misnamed the Institute for Advanced Study.

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Phys. Rev. 47 , 777–780 (1935).

Article   Google Scholar  

Freedman, S. J. & Clauser, J. F. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 , 938–941 (1972).

Bell, J. S. Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1 , 195–200 (1964).

Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. & Roger, G. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 , 1804–1807 (1982).

Feynman, R. P. Int . J. Theor. Phys. 21 , 467–488 (1982).

Bennett, C. H. & Brassard, G. in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing 175–179 (IEEE, 1984).

Google Scholar  

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Quantum physics

Intel brings quantum-computing microchips a step closer

News & Views 01 MAY 24

Allen J. Bard obituary: electrochemist whose techniques underpin clinical diagnostics, materials discovery and more

Obituary 01 MAY 24

Probing single electrons across 300-mm spin qubit wafers

Article 01 MAY 24

Probing entanglement in a 2D hard-core Bose–Hubbard lattice

Article 24 APR 24

How to stop students cramming for exams? Send them to sea

News & Views 30 APR 24

Ancient DNA traces family lines and political shifts in the Avar empire

News & Views 24 APR 24

Network of large pedigrees reveals social practices of Avar communities

Postdoctoral Associate- Cardiovascular Research

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Director, NLM

Vacancy Announcement Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health   DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE   THE POSITION:...

Bethesda, Maryland

National Library of Medicine - Office of the Director

Call for postdoctoral fellows in Molecular Medicine, Nordic EMBL Partnership for Molecular Medicine

The Nordic EMBL Partnership is seeking postdoctoral fellows for collaborative projects in molecular medicine through the first NORPOD call.

Helsinki, Finland

Nordic EMBL Partnership for Molecular Medicine

Associate or Senior Editor (microbial genetics, evolution, and epidemiology)

we’re seeking an editor who has a critical eye, a deep understanding of their subject and interests beyond, and who can think on their feet.

London, New York, Philadelphia or Pune – Hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies