加载中…程阳：信息过滤，甄别科学新闻的七个步骤
(2017-04-08 13:00:37)
标签：
程阳彩票博彩信息过滤甄别科学新闻的七个步 |
分类： 情资阅览 |
|
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”.
|
|
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.
|
|
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. . .
|
|
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.
|
|
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 is being used to make the scientific consensus on climate change into a debatable point. There are so many researchers in the world that you can always find someone with a Ph.D. to argue your point for you. And the media loves that. A good fight always attracts an audience, so the media play up both sides, regardless of how valid the arguments.
|
That's the suspicious side of the news. It's only gotten worse since big newspapers and news organizations cut back on positions for trained science writers, the kind who can judge what's real news and what's smoke. The good side is represented by organizations that actually seek out real news and present it fairly. SciCentral links to many of these; the BBC and Science Daily are reliably good.
|
Is the science news you read based on substance, or it ginned up to promote an agenda? Whenever you read a story, ask yourself, “Who profits?” It will help you put the hype into perspective.
|
|
第五，追踪报道相关的研究论文发表在哪里。
|
如果研究论文不是发表在正规的学术杂志上，那么这一报道本身就很有可能不可信。就算报道中提到了某家科学期刊，你还得查查看这个科学期刊的审查是不是严格，是否只要花钱就能发表。说到这，有一个最常用的数值能衡量期刊是不是正规，那就是影响因子。影响因子的算法是：用某期刊前两年发表的论文在这两年里被引用的总次数，除以该期刊在这两年内发表的论文总数。影响因子越高，期刊往往越可靠。
|
5. Where Was the Original Study Published?
|
This might sound dry and boring, but it's important. And pretty easy to answer. Real-world science doesn't matter, at least from a professional standpoint, until it's been published in a scientific journal. The standard process goes like this: A researcher does some science – conducts a series of experiments, crunches some numbers, makes a series of observations, whatever – and finds something that looks like a valuable new addition to their field. They don't blog it or go to their local newspaper. No, the first thing they do is write it up in the form of a formal research article and submit it to a scientific journal. The journal editors then review it and send it out to a few other researchers in the field for some critical feedback. It's called “peer review,” and it's a very important step. Letting other scientists look over the unpublished work in private allows them to comment on experimental shortcomings, question methods, analyze data, put it into context. It's an important quality control step. Only after the paper passes this peer review (often after several rounds of back-and-forth editing) is it published.
|
Most real scientists (as opposed to company PR people, marketers, or makers of diet supplements, skin rejuvenation creams, and other sciencey-sounding products) will not talk to the media until their work has been published in a scientific journal. If the news story you're reading doesn't mention an article published in a journal, be suspicious. Either the “scientist” whose work is being touted is not a scientist at all, or the work is not worthy of publication.
|
And even if a scientific journal is cited, it doesn't mean that the work is legit. Today, a number of publishers have figured out that you can start a publication that looks and sounds like a scientific journal, but is really a place where just about anybody can get just about anything published if they pay a fee. There is little quality control.
|
How can you tell a legit journal from one that's not? Scientists have a pretty strong sense of what the top journals are. There is a sort of pecking order, with the most respected ones at the top, for every field of science. If you can get your research published in a top journal, it will have greater impact on the field. Their quality control is good, and the competition to get into them is fierce. In theory, top journals publish only top papers.
|
There are different ways of measuring the best journals, but almost always a few major players are at the top of the general science list: Science (and its various sub-journals), Nature (and its sub-journals), The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the publications of the Royal Society in the UK (the oldest of the group), and PLOS ONE (the youngest). Anything published in these journals can be trusted as a legit advance in science. You can find out more about top science journals here and here.
|
So it pays to know (a) that the research was published in any sort of scientific journal and (b) what that journal was. If the news was not based on a journal article – say it was based on interviews instead, or some “doctor” making claims – don't buy it at face value. You have to ask a few more questions: What are their credentials? What is their agenda? Will they profit from their statements?
|
|
第六，关注一下这项研究是什么类型的。
|
科研的方法多种多样，比如有些工作用的是观察调研的方法，有些研究是在实验室里亲自操作做实验，还有些研究是通过梳理他人的数据。一般来说，研究的变量越多，越难得到可靠的结论。而在实验室操作的研究变量更可控，最后的结果也更明确。观察和调查类研究通常比较模棱两可。比如说，你调查了很多人的饮食习惯，然后追踪他们的健康情况。最后你也许会发现一些有趣的东西：吃大量金桔的人平均寿命更长。接下来，我们顺理成章地看到了一篇新闻：《金桔助你长寿！》但是，相关性并不等于因果性，也就是说，即使数字显示二者相关，也不能得出金桔能助人长寿的结论。面对其他类型的科研报告，我们也要多问几个问题，比如医学研究的实验对象是人类还是动物？受试者数量有多少？持续多长时间？等等。
|
6. What Kind of Research Was It?
|
Science can be done a lot of different ways. Sometimes it's observational, done by researchers quietly watching and noting what's happening. Sometimes it's experimental, done by manipulating things in a laboratory or a hospital. Sometimes it's statistical, done by crunching numbers and finding patterns in data that other people have gathered. There are combinations and variations on all of these. When you start to parse it out, there are a lot of ways to do science. Here are some basic approaches for medical research alone:
|
No matter what the method, the goal is generally the same: to understand the world and universe we live in. But there are many ways to get there. Before you can weigh the value of the latest science news, you have to pin down what kind of study was used.
|
Here's a tip: Laboratory experiments are more controllable – researchers can generally do a better job of getting rid of factors that might interfere with the question they’re trying to answer (variables)– and provide more definitive answers. Observational and survey studies can often be more fuzzy. You can carefully define the behavior of chemicals in the controlled setting of a lab, but the effects of personal behavior on health involve a lot more factors that can throw off results.
|
The more variables there are, generally, the harder it is to come to firm conclusions. Diet and health studies are famous for this. Say you survey a lot of people about what they eat, and then track their health. Maybe you find something interesting: People who eat a lot of kumquats have longer life spans on average. And the inevitable news story comes out, “Kumquats Help You Live Longer!”
|
Don't believe it. First thing is to know the difference between correlation (one thing seems to happen at about the same time or in about the same amount as another thing) and causation (one thing causes another thing). I like this graph from our friends at Spurious Correlations, which certainly looks like a correlation. But causation, um, maybe not:
|
Surveys themselves are usually questionable. There are a lot of ifs, buts, and maybes involved in making and analyzing surveys. How the question is asked is important. How the survey is sent out, who responds and who doesn't, and how the numbers are crunched all make a difference. A lot of tools have been developed to make survey work more accurate, but there is no way to eliminate all the biases.
|
In general, if you read something in the news that is based on a survey, be a little suspicious. At best, it might be a starting point, an indication that something interesting might be happening, a pointer to direct some real research that might lead to something more reliable. At worst, it's an attempt to create headlines out of nothing at all.
|
There are questions to ask with other kinds of reports as well. Were medical studies done on humans or animals (mouse and rat results are notoriously hard to extend to real humans)? How many people were studied (the more, the better)? For how long?
|
And so forth. Once you start looking critically at how the study was done, you're well on your way to getting a better understanding of its value.
|
|
第七步，注意信息的来源。
|
朋友圈、微博，甚至给你剪头发的理发师，都可能成为一个信息的来源。如果某条新闻让你觉得有点兴趣，你要做的第一件事就是追溯它的来源，然后评估报道者的质量，比如作者的资历如何？他们有科学新闻方面的背景吗？这家媒体是否可靠等等。
|
7. Who Ran the Story?
|
All news is not created equal. This is why careful consumers of the science news take not of not just what the story is, but who wrote it and where it first ran.
|
There are so many places to get the news today that we talk not in terms of newspapers or TV, but about vehicles that carry the news to us. And there are a million of them, from Twitter and Facebook feeds to the Associated Press to your local barber or hairdresser. They vary in quality and reliability.
|
The first thing to do when you hear something that interests you is to trace it back. It's kind of like being an archaeologist, digging down through the rubble to find the earliest traces, the place it all began. A tweet will go to a post which references a story, and so forth. Get back to where the news first showed up. Usually it will be either a news story or a blog post. If you can't find the source, forget the story -- you can't believe it until you can pin it down.
|
Now you can start your real work. We've talked a lot about how you can judge the quality of the information in the story. Now consider the quality of the people who put it together.
|
It starts with the writer. What qualifies them to write the story? Do they have any background in science or science journalism? Who do they work for?
|
Now go to the organization that ran the story. Is it reliable? Keep in mind that media are driven by different motives than scientists. They tend to highlight stories that attract eyeballs, not the ones that are most important. So you get a lot of controversy stories, “everything you know is wrong” pieces, and often stories that are based on more sensational, less reliable subject matter. Better-quality outlets tone down the sensationalism in favor of substance. Lower-quality vehicles trumpet catchy headlines and graphics, followed by substance-free stories.
|
The more sensational the headline, the less trustworthy the story.
|
Who do you trust? When it comes to science news, you're generally safer relying on organizations that have money and staff enough to do careful fact checking and editing. This isn't always true – some one-off science blogs can be very good – but it's true enough to serve as a rule of thumb. The job of science journalist isn't easy. Good ones have to know science, and they have to know how to write for the public. That's a pretty rare combination. And only a very few newspapers and other media can afford to pay skilled science writers, plus the editing staff to back them up. Those that do offer more reliable stories. Examples of top shops include the New York Times and The Guardian in the newspaper world; The Economist and The Atlantic among magazines; and the BBC when it comes to broadcasting.
|
Bigger newspapers, magazines, and news organizations have the staff and structure to check and edit and recheck information before putting it out. Fred, the blogger working out of his basement, does not. In between are a huge number of websites and publications that vary widely in quality.
|
When it comes to science writing, the web offers risks along with riches. The move among many big mainstream media companies to cut back on science journalism has freed a lot of talent, much of which has been migrating online. Scientists themselves have added a lot of good blogs.The result is what some people see as a golden age of online science writing.
|
But watch out: Research that is reported in advocacy publications (put out by groups trying to push a specific agenda, no matter what that agenda is) should always be viewed with skepticism. Ditto the increasing amount of “news” that is rewritten from corporate press releases. When in doubt, cross-check stories in more respected publications or websites.
|
|
程阳：数据科学家本质上就是数据烹饪大师
程阳：精英与凡人到底有什么区别，美国杜克大学的牛人们画龙点睛刀刀见血
喜欢
0
赠金笔