新浪博客

程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤

2017-04-08 13:00阅读：

http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/u/1350427000

程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤

|
程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤
|
7 QUESTIONS TO HELP YOU CUT THE CRAP AND GET TO THE CORE OF ANY SCIENCE NEWS STORY
|
在当今社交媒体泛滥、标题党横行的时代，信息的过滤是一种智慧，也需要学会一些技巧，只有这样才能拒绝忽悠，不做吃瓜群众。
|
关于信息过滤，仿佛是很高大上的词汇，但在现实生活中要真正实现，也不是一蹴而就的。君不见，朋友圈，即便是所谓的大学教授、知识分子，都被忽悠的团团转，成了伪知识、伪新闻的传播者。
|
由美国科普作家、俄勒冈大学副教授 Thomas Hager 领衔的科普团队 Naked Facts 最近发表了一篇文章，教大家怎样通过简单的七步来识破所谓的“惊天大新闻” ——
|

Most of the science stories you read online are pretty crappy. Many of them are overhyped, put out there to snag your eyeballs without regard for any real value. Some of them are skewed to fit a political or economic agenda. And the rest are most often poorly written 'gee whiz' stories that give readers whiplash when one story is contradicted by the next (Today: 'Coffee Causes Cancer!' Tomorrow: 'Coffee Stops Cancer!'). It's not good for readers, and it's not good for science.
|
So here's a list of seven simple questions to ask the next time you read about a 'breakthrough”.
|
程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤

|
第一步，寻找证据。这一步说来简单，但是大多数读者被骗的原因就是盲目地相信标题传达的结论，如果花时间去文章中找一下证据，也许就能判断出这个结论是不是可靠。所以，第一步就是要问：这样说的证据是什么。
|
1. Where’s the proof?
|
This seems almost too simple. But many people reading the news don’t pay attention to the one thing that really matters: Where’s the evidence that this “discovery” is real? Never accept anything just because a reporter says so. Demand proof. If the story doesn't quote some real scientists from real laboratories and refer to some real articles in real journals, junk it. The reporter's trying to scam you.
|
程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤

|
第二步，问这条新闻中的原始研究是谁、什么时间、在哪里完成的。
|
如果主持这项研究的科学家在给营利性的公司或者有政治倾向的智库工作，那你就要提高警惕了。因为这些研究背后可能有自己的目的，他们提供的信息也可能不是全部的真相。当然，并不是说这些研究都没有意义，像贝尔实验室、特斯拉实验室，他们的存在当然是有意义的，只不过他们更倾向于为制造做贡献，而不是科学前沿。所以，对于科学研究，最好还是找顶尖大学或者声誉较好的公共科研机构做的研究，相对而言，这些科学家更可能披露真实的科研结果。
|
2. Who Did It?
|
Any good science news story has to answer some basic questions. If it doesn't, don't believe it. Top of the list: who did the original research, when and where? If the work was done by scientists working for a for-profit company or politically motivated think tank, be skeptical. Those people are paid by people who have an agenda, and the 'facts' presented are likely to be carefully groomed to promote that agenda, not give you the full story. It's not that industrial or politically motivated research is worthless -- some of our greatest advances were made in the labs of for-profit businesses, from Bell to Tesla (both the old Wizard and the new car) -- but they tend to be advances in making stuff rather than advancing the frontiers of science. When it comes to scientific research, look for studies run by scientists at top universities or respected publicly funded research groups like the National Institutes of Health. They're less driven by money (although not entirely) and more likely to present the truths of nature as revealed to them, rather than attired in the raiment of profit.
|
When the research was done is important, too. In the past two weeks I've read two big-headline stories in big-name news sites that were all about work actually done more than a decade ago. The 'news' was not new at all. But you'd never find that out without digging down behind the headlines to the original papers. More on that later. . .
|
程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤

|
第三，问问这些科学家背后的资助者是谁。
|
不只是科学家为盈利性、有政治倾向性的组织工作会出现上一步说的情况，如果这项研究的资助者来自这些组织，同样会出现信息呈现不完整的情况。所以，调查过研究的作者之后，还要再检查一下研究背后有没有利益组织在资助，因为有些研究之所以能上新闻，并不是因为它有多重要，而是背后有推手在支持。
|
3. Who paid for it?
|
Hundreds of scientific advances are published in research journals every day. But only a tiny fraction make it into the news. Many break into the news not because they're important in and of themselves, but because somebody pushed them out onto the TV, splashed them across the web, or spun them into newspaper headlines. Often that somebody has an agenda. As a critical consumer of the news, it's your job to see through it.
|
Most reputable science journals demand that scientists publishing research in their pages disclose whether they’re in the pay of companies who might profit from the results. A company making a new drug, for instance, might try to publicize the product by putting out positive research results. The company might get some PR firm to ghost-write the potentially profitable findings in the most positive way, then get the scientist to sign off, and submit it to a journal. It look like real science. But it's really a form of marketing.
|
The point is that it's not pure science. It's science done for profit. And good journals make sure that readers know about it by demanding that the authors of the paper disclose any potential conflicts of interest, any firms they work for that stand to make a profit off the results. The problem is that while the journal might include that information (the best ones do, but not all of them), news stories often don't. If you're really interested in knowing whether a story is slanted, sometimes you have to go back to the original research paper and check for yourself.
|
If the study was backed by a for-profit company, be skeptical. But it's not only corporations that you have to watch out for. The same rules apply if the research was done or funded by a public interest group devoted to promoting a particular cause. Any self-interested sponsoring group will be tempted to highlight results that favor their agenda and bury conflicting evidence.
|
It doesn't necessarily mean that the science is bad. It just means that it might be slanted, or skewed, or pushed beyond its real level of importance. Critical readers need to take that into account.
|
程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤

|
第四，你要问这一新闻报道受益者是谁。
|
检查研究作者、检查研究的资助者，这都是从源头做排查，做完这些之后，你还要从受众的角度思考一个问题，那就是这项研究发表了之后谁会受益。如果这项研究很明显能给媒体带来特别多的点击量，或者研究结果一定会提高香烟公司的利润，那你也要提高警惕。
|
4. Who Profits from It?
|
Okay, this sounds cynical, but get real: A lot of science and health stories in the news are there not because of the inherent value of the research, but because they profit somebody. Sometimes it's denominated in dollars, sometimes it's measured by political power, or how it furthers a social agenda.
|
And everybody’s got an agenda. We know, we know, science is supposed to be neutral, pure, objective, and above all this, right?
|
A little, maybe. But not entirely. And certainly not when it comes to the science news. The stuff that makes it into the news -- a tiny fraction of the science that is done every day -- is often the end result of a complicated system that is more like making a business deal than presenting new knowledge. News organizations want to attract more eyeballs and bring in more advertising income. Corporations want to sell things and reward shareholders. Nonprofits want to trumpet successes and build support. Scientists want recognition and grant money. This is not to say that there are not selfless and goodhearted people in all these fields, but rather to emphasize that there are other strong forces at play.
|
There remains the noble goal of increasing the sum total of human knowledge – the agenda of the best scientists. That gets something into a research journal, not all over Twitter. Most science is slow, cautious, and incremental, adding small bits to correct, confirm, or tweak what we already know. That doesn’t make for exciting news copy. So the media play up other angles, highlighting controversies (even where little controversy might really exist), hyping little things as if they were big things, working harder to attract readers than to give a clear idea about an issue.
|
Add to that the endless pressure from special-interest groups who use science to promote their endeavors. When tobacco companies were attacked because cigarettes were shown to cause cancer, they fought back with a handful of well-paid scientists who argued the opposite view. They managed to take an issue on which the majority of scientists agreed, and make it look like an argument between two equally balanced sides. The same technique i

我的更多文章

下载客户端阅读体验更佳

APP专享