The article says: "While we agree that the well-being of children is a crucial issue and that the impact of screen-based lifestyles demands serious investigation, the message that many parents will hear is that screens are inherently harmful. This is simply not supported by solid research and evidence."
If an effect is so small that existing studies haven't measured it yet, then it's probably fine to ignore it even if future studies might find a very small effect.
> you only get to raise your kids once
> If the jury is out ... err on the side of caution
> as with all things, moderation is key
It's one thing when you use hand-wavy platitudes to guide your own parenting choices. The problem is that supposedly rational organizations (WHO, government bodies) use similar hand-waving platitudes in setting official recommendations and policies.
> If an effect is so small that existing studies haven't measured it yet, then it's probably fine to ignore it even if future studies might find a very small effect.
This is just blind scientism of the worst kind. The only things you can draw this conclusion about are _the specific possible effects that have been studied_. The possibility of screens around children all day hasn't been around for very long at all, and it's not irrational for parents to suspect that there may be effects that would only show up in, e.g., longitudinal studies.
Hell, the _very statement that you're quoting_ uses the words "the impact of screen-based lifestyles demands serious investigation". Parental caution (and those of institutional recommendations) in the lead-up to a more fleshed-out body of scientific literature on the topic isn't unreasonable at all.
No, it's an inference drawn form imperfect information, which is the bedrock of policy-making and civilized life in general. Screens have been around for decades now. They have been the subject of significant study in different contexts. The average American has watched more than four hours of TV per day for more than thirty years. An entire generation was raised in front of the TV. If there was a major first order effect from "screen time," we'd know about it by now.
Still, the topic isn't strictly on people's interactions with a screen. The biggest difference is availability. You couldn't carry your T.V. with you everywhere you go, and it can't do even close to as much as a mobile phone can.
I'll agree that there's imperfect information because of how new the technology is, and how it's difficult to study the long-term effects because of that. However, erring on the side of caution while doing something as non-deterministic as raising a child because you don't know the consequences is not an incorrect course of action.
If an effect is so small that existing studies haven't measured it yet, then it's probably fine to ignore it even if future studies might find a very small effect.
> you only get to raise your kids once
> If the jury is out ... err on the side of caution
> as with all things, moderation is key
It's one thing when you use hand-wavy platitudes to guide your own parenting choices. The problem is that supposedly rational organizations (WHO, government bodies) use similar hand-waving platitudes in setting official recommendations and policies.