शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Evaluating Sources & Fact Checking: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #6 - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।

142 वाक्य

यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।

Are you eating a credit card's worth of plastic every week?

Uh, probably not.

But if you saw headlines like this, you might worry that you are.

These days, trying to piece together what to believe can feel impossible.

But we can still find reliable, trustworthy answers, as long as we know how to look for them.

Hi, I'm Hank Green, and welcome to Crash Course Scientific Thinking.

You probably already know that you shouldn't believe everything read, watch, or hear.

On an internet where everyone is competing both for attention and to control narratives, it's no surprise that there are plenty of distortions,

exaggerations, baseless claims, propaganda, and whatever this is.

But it's also home to lots of good scientific information, too.

So when it comes to something as important as science, how do we figure out what's reliable?

Well, it helps to understand how a science story like this becomes news in the first place.

See, that CNN article isn't the whole story.

It's just the part we see as consumers of science news.

That science news tastes bad.

Think of it like the tip of the iceberg.

There's a lot more going on below the surface.

CNN got the details from this report by the WWF.

No, not the wrestling group from the 90s, the Worldwide Fund for Nature.

And they got it from a study they commissioned from researchers at Australia's University of Newcastle,

which reported a range of possible amounts of plastic that people might consume in a week, from a high of 5 grams all the way down to 0.1 grams.

But the WWF only reported the high end of the range, saying an average person could be ingesting approximately 5 grams of plastic per week,

about the size of a credit card.

And that technically could be true.

It could be that much.

There's a lot of things that could be true.

It's like when an insurance company says, I could save you up to 15% or more on your car insurance.

Up to 15% or more?

That's all of the percents.

So why would they do that?

Well, different kinds of publications have different kinds of goals.

And as a savvy consumer of science media, it's helpful for you to consider what those goals might be.

Like, the WWF is a nonprofit advocacy group whose goal is to preserve nature through lobbying and research.

So they might really want to sound the alarm about microplastics in order to bring people into their broader mission.

Considering an outlet's goals gives us, as consumers, more information to consider.

It gives us a broader context than just the story would alone.

And while I would agree that microplastics are a big deal, only reporting on the upper range to make the situation feel more urgent

and headline-worthy can make a situation seem a lot more dire than it actually is, and intentionally or not, be misleading.

News organizations, by the way, also have goals that we should take into consideration.

the goal to get a lot of people to click on an article.

And a headline that says, you might eat between a tenth of a gram and five grams of microplastics every week, is not gonna get the clicks.

What gets reported in the news is sometimes different from the information in the primary source, the first-hand account from the scientists who actually conducted the study.

The primary source is the most accurate representation of what the scientists who conducted the research actually found.

In this particular instance, the primary source was the study from the researchers at Newcastle who reported a range of possible amounts of plastic ingestion.

So what happened between the primary source and CNN?

Well, the Newcastle team got their results and shared them with the WWF.

It was then written into a report by consultants who had

not conducted the research directly in what we would call a secondary source.

And this secondary source only listed the upper range of plastic we could be eating.

Those are the numbers that got picked up by CNN.

In science, news articles are often tertiary sources.

They summarize the information of primary and secondary sources, and are usually not written by scientists.

Sometimes when science gets reported, it can also get distorted.

Sometimes it's an honest mistake, someone somewhere along the way got their facts mixed up.

We call that misinformation.

Information that is wrong or misleading.

But because, as the kids say, we live in a society, we also have to worry about disinformation.

that is intentionally misleading or false.

But here's the thing.

None of this means that we have to stop trusting reputable news organizations, or even advocacy organizations like the WWF wholesale.

It just means we need to be more diligent when we are consuming news.

And good science journalists have learned to navigate the scientific community.

They often have experts they can reach out to for second opinions,

and they present useful context behind a story to help the reader understand how the news fits into larger conversations in science.

So, what does this mean for us?

How can we, as non-scientists and non-journalists, dig down and figure out when a story is reliable and when it isn't?

I think it's time for some sage advice.

That's the key, Hank.

You don't dig, you sift.

It's a way of evaluating sources developed by digital literacy expert Mike Caulfield from the University of Washington.

The S stands for stop.

Stop.

When you see something that triggers a strong emotional response, you should stop and really think about what you're reading.

So don't immediately text everyone I know and tell them

that they couldn't book a flight with all the microplastics inside of them.

Got it.

What's next?

Ah, investigate the source, the place that published the information.

Who's putting it out there? And why?

In this case, we're looking at CNN.

How do we find out if CNN is a reputable source?

Well, we know they've been around for over 40 years.

But let's investigate a bit further.

So let's open a new tab and get the scoop on CNN.

It looks like they're in the green zone on this media bias chart from Harvard Library's research guides.

We call this strategy lateral reading.

Checking other websites, newspapers, and media guides like this one to make sure

that the source you're getting the original information from is on the up and up.

So if the original source is trustworthy, then we're good?

Not yet.

Up next is F.

Find better coverage.

Using those same lateral reading skills, we need to check if other sources are reporting the same thing.

What are other outlets reporting?

In this case, we can find some other sources citing the credit card stat.

But we can also find reputable sources saying that it's misleading.

If other reputable sources are disagreeing, it's a sign to take the source you found with a grain of salt.

If other sources are agreeing, then it's a good sign you can dig deeper into what you read.

So you've got to read not just beyond the headline, but beyond the first source, especially before you share it.

100

Then you won't be surprised to hear the T.

101

T is for trace claims to their original context.

102

This is a big one.

103

Often when we see quotes or images online, they're being taken out of context.

104

So tracing them back to their origin can help us figure out if we're seeing the whole story.

105

In this case, the CNN article tells us that the credit card claim comes from the WWF article, which CNN links to.

106

There we can see that they got the claim from this original study.

107

And here we can see the information in its original context, which stated humans may ingest 0.1 to 5 grams of microplastics weekly.

108

Not, you're eating a credit card.

109

Much more nuanced.

110

So the high end of this range, which was in the original report, is actually 50 times greater than the low end of the range.

111

That's a lot.

112

And this has been your Sage Advice.

113

Thanks, Sage.

114

Okay, so sift is awesome, and in an age where we're getting so much of our news from social media,

115

it's more important than ever for us to be discerning about the information that we are absorbing and sharing.

116

Like, you will almost never see a primary source in a TikTok video.

117

That should raise immediate red flags and encourage you to start sifting.

118

Also, ChatGPT and other generative AI tools do not pass the SIFT test.

119

They are not trustworthy as primary sources.

120

And I get it, fact-checking can feel like a lot of work.

121

For me, the SIFT method is a great tool, but there are other fact-checking methods out there, and the one you use and how you use it is a personal choice.

122

But reliability isn't.

123

Some sources are just more reliable and more trustworthy than others, and our personal biases don't change that.

124

Like, the WWF might be an organization that does a lot of good, but there's still an advocacy group which is going to advocate for a certain cause.

125

And that might mean occasionally misrepresenting scientific information.

126

The point is, anytime we're looking at any source of science information, we have to remember that reputation

127

and motive are among the most important things we should be looking for when it comes to sources.

128

There might be a conflict of interest, like with the WWF, or even an obvious lack of reliability or trustworthiness when we start sifting through our sources.

129

Thinking critically about the sources we're getting our news from is

130

one of the best ways to make sure we aren't consuming a credit card's worth of bad information every week.

131

But it's not foolproof.

132

Even the sift method will let us down sometimes.

133

Like we learned back in episode 1, none of us are immune to bad information.

134

But tools like lateral reading are some of the best shields we have against the tide of mistruths.

135

And I think that you'll find that as you start to sift through the sources, the trustworthy ones will rise to the surface more often than not.

136

In our final episode, we're going to explore the crossroad of science and public perception.

137

I'll see you then.

138

This episode of Crash Course Scientific Thinking was produced in partnership with HHMI BioInteractive,

139

bringing real science stories to thousands of high school and undergrad life science classrooms.

140

If you're a teacher, visit their website for resources that explore the topics we discussed in the video today.

141

Thanks for watching this episode of Crash Course Scientific Thinking, which was filmed in Missoula, Montana, and was made with the help of all of these nice people.

142

If you want to help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever, you can join our community on Patreon.

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ

AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर

IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत

शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ

शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें

QR स्कैन करें

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

उसी चैनल से

Remembering and Forgetting: Crash Course Psychology #14

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

Crash Course US History Preview

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

What's all the Yellen About? Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Crash Course Economics #10

Daily ConversationUniversity Students

FOR YOU

अनुशंसित वीडियो

66 वाक्य

Business Partner C1. Unit 2. Video 2.3.1.

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

138 वाक्य

Statistical Thinking in Science: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #2

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

201 वाक्य

The AI Bubble Survives on $1.65 Trillion in Hidden Debt

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

109 वाक्य

‘Non-Ultra-Processed’ Food Label Aims to Help the American Diet

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

189 वाक्य

Creatine: is there truth behind the hype?

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

38 वाक्य

RE2 Unit 11A

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

133 वाक्य

Carbon Fiber - The Material Of The Future?

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

388 वाक्य

Targeting Belly Fat Is... Possible?! (NEW Study)

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

31 वाक्य

What happens to old electronic devices when you upgrade?

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

160 वाक्य

Stop Walking 10,000 Steps/Day (do this for 10 minutes instead)

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

684 वाक्य

What Happens to Your Brain When You Stop Using Social Media | English Listening Practice (B2-C1)

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

50 वाक्य

We Fell For The Oldest Lie On The Internet

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

संदर्भ और पृष्ठभूमि

यह वीडियो "क्रैश कोर्स साइंटिफिक थिंकिंग" का एक भाग है, जहां हंक ग्रीन हमें दिखाते हैं कि विज्ञान के समाचारों में विश्वसनीय जानकारी कैसे तलाशें। वर्तमान डिजिटल युग में, जहाँ सूचना की प्रचुरता है, यह समझना आवश्यक है कि हम किस पर विश्वास करें और कैसे। हंक यह समझाते हैं कि कई बार शीर्षक या समाचार, मूल रिपोर्ट की सच्चाई से भिन्न हो सकते हैं। यह दर्शाने के लिए, वह एक अध्ययन के उदाहरण के माध्यम से बताते हैं जिससे यह स्पष्ट होता है कि हमें सूचना की बारीकियों को समझना आवश्यक है।

हर रोज़ संवाद के लिए शीर्ष 5 वाक्यांश

“क्या आप हर हफ्ते एक क्रेडिट कार्ड के बराबर प्लास्टिक खा रहे हैं?” - इस वाक्यांश से आप रोज़मर्रा की बातचीत में चिंता और यथार्थ का मिश्रण व्यक्त कर सकते हैं।
“यह संभव है कि मेरे द्वारा पढ़ी गई जानकारी पूरी सच न हो।” - यह वाक्यांश दिखाता है कि आप विषय की गहराई में जाकर समझने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं।
“मुझे इस विषय के लिए अधिक विश्वसनीय स्रोतों की तलाश करनी होगी।” - यह एक विचारशील टिप्पणी है जो आपकी खोजी प्रवृत्ति को दर्शाती है।
“प्रत्येक जानकारी का एक संदर्भ होता है, जिसे समझना आवश्यक है।” - यह सीखने की प्रक्रिया में सहायता करता है।
“सभी समाचार एक समान नहीं होते हैं।” - इस वाक्यांश से आप समाचारों के प्रति साहसिकता व्यक्त कर सकते हैं।

चरण-दर-चरण शैडोइंग गाइड

इस वीडियो में दिखाए गए संवाद को समझने और बेहतर अंग्रेजी उच्चारण में सुधार के लिए, निम्नलिखित कदम उठाएं:

वीडियो को ध्यान से सुनें: पहले बार में पूरे वीडियो को बिना रुकावट सुनें।
महत्वपूर्ण वाक्यांशों को नोट करें: ऊपर दिए गए शीर्ष वाक्यांशों को लिख लें और समझें कि ये संवाद में कैसे प्रयुक्त हुए।
शैडोइंग अभ्यास करें: वीडियो को फिर से चलाएं और धीरे-धीरे हंक के साथ बोलें। यह अंग्रेजी बोलने का अभ्यास करने का एक प्रभावी तरीका है। अंग्रेजी शैडोइंग से आप उच्चारण में सुधार कर सकेंगे।
स्वरूप और व्याकरण पर ध्यान दें: यह सुनिश्चित करें कि आप जिस टोन और उच्चारण का अनुकरण कर रहे हैं, वह सही है।
फीडबैक प्राप्त करें: अपने दोस्तों या शिक्षकों से अपने बोलने के अभ्यास पर प्रतिक्रिया मागें।

इन सरल उपायों के साथ, आप न केवल अपनी अंग्रेजी बोलने की क्षमता में सुधार करेंगे, बल्कि यूट्यूब से अंग्रेजी सीखने में भी सहायक होंगे।

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	was then written · are usually not written · being taken
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	have learned · they've been · has been
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	range, which was · group which is · Thinking, which was

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Evaluating Sources & Fact Checking: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #6 - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

Remembering and Forgetting: Crash Course Psychology #14

Crash Course US History Preview

What's all the Yellen About? Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Crash Course Economics #10

How Geologists Can Tell if the World is Warming : Crash Course Geology #23

Crash Course Sex Ed Preview

Meet Your Master - Getting to Know Your Brain: Crash Course Psychology #4

Derivatives: Crash Course Physics #2

Introduction to Astronomy: Crash Course Astronomy #1

Indus Valley Civilization: Crash Course World History #2

Ancient Egypt: Crash Course World History #4

What is Engineering?: Crash Course Engineering #1

The Persians & Greeks: Crash Course World History #5

The Secret to Business Writing: Crash Course Business - Soft Skills #3

Supervised Learning: Crash Course AI #2

Why Are US Politics Today So Divisive?: Crash Course US Government #1

Where Do Diamonds Come From?: Crash Course Geology #8

Tissues, Part 1: Crash Course Anatomy & Physiology #2

Psychological Research: Crash Course Psychology #2

Writing Systems: Crash Course Linguistics #16

Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?

Business Partner C1. Unit 2. Video 2.3.1.

Statistical Thinking in Science: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #2

The AI Bubble Survives on $1.65 Trillion in Hidden Debt

‘Non-Ultra-Processed’ Food Label Aims to Help the American Diet

Creatine: is there truth behind the hype?

RE2 Unit 11A

Carbon Fiber - The Material Of The Future?

Targeting Belly Fat Is... Possible?! (NEW Study)

What happens to old electronic devices when you upgrade?

Stop Walking 10,000 Steps/Day (do this for 10 minutes instead)

What Happens to Your Brain When You Stop Using Social Media | English Listening Practice (B2-C1)

We Fell For The Oldest Lie On The Internet

संदर्भ और पृष्ठभूमि

हर रोज़ संवाद के लिए शीर्ष 5 वाक्यांश

चरण-दर-चरण शैडोइंग गाइड

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?