PHIL 347 Week 6 Discussion 2 and Responses; Empirical Reasoning

PHIL 347 Week 6 Discussion 2: Empirical Reasoning (Including Follow-ups) Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (includingthe website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies andhow methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported. Reportage of both studies can be found with an Internet search using all of the following terms:<Philadelphia myopia night lights>. The submissions for this assignment are posts in the assignment's discussion. Below are the discussion posts for Nursing Student, or you can view the full discussion. from Week 6 Discussion 2: Empirical ReasoningJun 10, 2020 7:35pm Hello Class!    I was intrigued to find the differences between the two studies. All 3 of my kids are short sighted and when they were young I asked the doctor if it was due to the nightlights they all had in their rooms. The doctor actually told me that night lights shouldn’t have caused any problems with their vision. There have been a range of studies that looks to understand why people develop short-sightedness. The two studies we are focusing on today came up with completely opposite results even though the conditions that the experiments were conducted and the questions that were asked are very similar. I figured that this was due to how the research was conducted. This means we have to look at the Methods.  The first study I looked at “Myopia and ambient lighting at night” was studying people who had already developed myopia. This was done by giving parents a questionnaire about their children and their light exposure as a child. This study only looked at “479 children” who had already developed myopia (Quinn). This does not represent the general population as people with the conditions were picked for this study and participants were not chosen blindly. This can dramatically affect th