Carr's essentially an alarmist, who's out to - gasp! - sell some books. He's gone so far as to argue that hyperlinks are a bad thing.
I haven't gone through all of Carr's book, but in the section where he voices disapproval of links, the study he cites to prove that paper is better didn't involve anyone actually reading anything on paper.
I won't belabor the points that others have written about better than I, but here's a few links:
Recent Comments
Arizona 'vacancy' law doesn't apply to Giffords' seat: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report…
I haven't gone through all of Carr's book, but in the section where he voices disapproval of links, the study he cites to prove that paper is better didn't involve anyone actually reading anything on paper.
I won't belabor the points that others have written about better than I, but here's a few links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/inte…
http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/the-internet…
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-do…
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/06/17/n…
http://www.wordyard.com/2010/08/30/in-defe…