no, i don’t.

you claimed that haptic learning and digital learning are equal.

that’s the claim.

and you provided zero evidence for that claim.

claims are not true by default, just because they are “balanced” or “neutral”.

what matters is:

• what is the newer claim?
• what is the less established claim?

your claim that digital learning is at least equal to haptic learning is, by definition, the newer claim, so it needs evidence to back it up.

it must be the newer claim, because people have been learning through haptic media for literally millenia, but digital learning is a very recent development.

so claiming they are equal needs to be backed up by evidence.

or in other words: you pulled that claim out of thin air. bring the facts or get lost.

there’s no such thing as a default assumption of “neutrality”. straight up not a thing that exists.

what does exist, and what you’re mosst likely mixing up here, is the mediocrity principle. that’s en entirely different concept and has nothing to do with “neutrality”, because no such concept exists in scientific contexts.

“neutral” is not a concept in nature, so it’s not a concept in research either.

there was for a long time a similar concept for U.S. broadcasters, where they were obligated to try and provide balanced reporting, but that also has nothing to do with research.

if you can provide a source for that “neutrality” claim, I’d be thrilled to learn something new! but for now that’s yet another [citation needed]

[citation needed]

also: you made a claim that “People don’t learn with pencil or computer better”, and that claim needs backing up with facts.

[citation needed]

do any of those shoot babies just because the parent happens to be black?