Pratica di Shadowing: What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7 - Impara a parlare inglese con i video
Scegli una modalità di pratica
Ogni modalità apre una sala di pratica a schermo intero.
143 frasi
Se le frasi sono troppo corte o troppo lunghe, clicca su Edit per modificarle.
1
Smoking causes cancer.
2
I know that, you know that, and the tobacco industry definitely knows that.
3
But not all that long ago.
4
You couldn't even watch Saturday morning cartoons without being bombarded with messages that cigarettes aren't that bad for you.
5
Tobacco companies ran ads in magazines and periodicals saying that numerous scientists question smoking's risks,
6
that there are many possible causes of lung cancer, and that there's no proof cigarette smoking is one of them. was true.
7
Hi, I'm Hank Green, and this is Crash Course Scientific Thinking.
8
Before scientific knowledge reaches people like you and me, it takes a long, arduous journey.
9
And big stretches of it are dedicated to collecting, testing, and scrutinizing empirical evidence,
10
information collected through rigorous scientific methods that either support or refute an idea.
11
The vast majority of scientific progress hums along quietly, its evidence becoming widely accepted without much hullabaloo.
12
You won't hear pundits debate whether carbon has six protons, the mating behavior of sea slugs.
13
Though I, for one, definitely would and do read those articles.
14
But here's the thing: sometimes, science produces a nugget of knowledge that resists the status quo.
15
It challenges an economic system, or a hierarchy, or a choice people make in their lives.
16
And when it lands with the public, tensions can flare.
17
Which is what happened in 1964 with smoking.
18
So in this episode, we're going to do two things.
19
First, we'll peel back the curtain on how the scientific process pieced together evidence about the risks of smoking.
20
And then we'll unpack why that knowledge got so much pushback, and what we can learn from the tale about the public consumption of science news.
21
At the beginning of the 20th century, lung cancer was so rare, doctors treated cases of it like once -in -a -lifetime learning opportunities.
22
lung cancer rates started to spike, and scientists began working to figure out why.
23
There were a lot of early ideas about the possible cause.
24
Maybe it was atmospheric pollution or newly paved roads.
25
Maybe it was x -rays, poison gas from World War I, or the after -effects of the 1918 flu pandemic.
26
Those were all correlations.
27
But as we learned in an earlier episode, correlation doesn't mean causation.
28
So over two decades, scientists tested different explanations and shared the results with each other.
29
was like a pebble added to a pile of evidence.
30
Scientists had to weigh that evidence by examining each study skeptically and asking things like: How well was the study designed?
31
Did it find a strong or weak relationship to lung cancer?
32
And how directly did the methods actually get at the question they were trying to answer?
33
For some explanations, no evidence emerged.
34
You're off the hook, Flew.
35
But eventually, four main lines of evidence pointed to one suspect: Exhibit A: Observational studies,
36
which had followed groups of people over a period of time, showed that smokers developed lung cancer at higher rates than nonsmokers.
37
But there were other factors in people's lives that could be affecting cancer rates, so these studies alone weren't enough.
38
Enter Exhibit B: Experimental studies were done on mice, because you can better control conditions in a lab.
39
And mice exposed to tobacco developed tumors.
40
smoke.
41
Exhibit C: Further studies showed that cigarette smoke destroys cilia, the tiny structures in lungs that keep out bad stuff.
42
And finally, Exhibit D: Tobacco smoke itself contains a chemical compound
43
that was previously shown to cause cancer in people exposed to coal tar.
44
All that evidence, when weighed collectively, began to tip the scales.
45
By the late 1950s, scientists had reached a consensus: widespread agreement given all the evidence
46
that smoking was the leading cause of lung cancer.
47
So, in 1964, the US Surgeon General, himself a smoker, announced to reporters that cigarettes cause lung cancer.
48
But for the public, that message got drowned out by a lot of noise.
49
So let's rewind the take.
50
the public view.
51
Even in the 1930s, people suspected smoking wasn't exactly great for you.
52
But tobacco companies worked to stay ahead of the narrative, boasting that their cigarettes were "healthier,
53
safer, gentler, fresh as mountain air." The RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ran ads citing studies
54
that claimed more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette.
55
And you want cigarettes and then asking them what kind of cigarettes they smoked.
56
I mean, come on!
57
By the 1950s, tobacco companies knew about the mounting scientific evidence.
58
But they were still invested in selling their product.
59
So they changed the message.
60
Instead of "Our cigarettes are better for you," the ads became "We don't know yet
61
if cigarettes are bad for you." And by doing so, they manufactured a controversy that didn't actually exist.
62
This is where things get wild.
63
In 1954, a committee called the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was formed by the tobacco companies,
64
released a statement claiming the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't settled, and they would be researching the issue themselves.
65
These people would have thrived on social media.
66
This went on for decades, long after the scientific consensus had been settled.
67
The tobacco industry distracted from smoking's harms by funding and publicizing research
68
They suppressed and criticized studies that found smoking was bad for you, and all the while, they publicly denied that smoking was risky or addictive,
69
and blasted ads that made cigarettes seem as enticing as possible.
70
They did all of this knowingly and strategically to keep making money.
71
A 1969 internal memo at the tobacco company Brown & Williamson stated: "Doubt is our product,
72
since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public.
73
means of establishing a controversy.
74
Wow.
75
They just said it.
76
And selling that doubt worked.
77
The tobacco industry preyed upon people's cognitive biases, those predictable patterns our brains tend to take that can sway us away from accepting valid information.
78
Especially when it challenges something we already do or think.
79
The news that smoking causes cancer just didn't vibe with a world where smoking was common, widely accepted, and everybody did it.
80
Doctors, astronauts, movie stars.
81
Plus, cigarettes are highly addictive.
82
more attention to reasons to keep doing that thing.
83
And the tobacco industry was willing to give smokers those reasons, even though the reasons were made up.
84
They systematically attacked the widely accepted scientific explanation in order to sow doubt among the public.
85
But here's what finally turned the tide against smoking.
86
In the 1990s, scientists uncovered evidence of exactly how cigarette smoke can trigger a normal cell to become a cancerous cell.
87
pay up billions of dollars for the damage they had caused.
88
The writing was on the wall.
89
But the tobacco industry still tried to spin the narrative.
90
The message this time?
91
They claimed they'd always been transparent about the risks of smoking, and said that it had always been an individual's choice to take those risks.
92
Which brings me to another common point of tension that can make scientific knowledge seem controversial.
93
Sometimes, scientific knowledge clashes with people's values.
94
like the precise mechanism that causes a cell to become cancerous, or how much smoking increases your individual risk of developing cancer.
95
But science can't tell us what to do with that knowledge.
96
It's on us, as individuals and as societies, to decide what to do now that we know what we know.
97
For example, in the early 2000s, as the dangers of secondhand smoke became more widely known, many cities and states began banning smoking in public places.
98
the science, it was about how that knowledge should mesh with values.
99
What's more important: a person's freedom to make their own choices with their own body?
100
Or a person's freedom to protect their body from the choices someone else is making?
101
Science can't answer those questions.
102
And I can't answer these questions for you.
103
So you might be wondering, "Why did I even tell you all this?" You can think of the war over smoking as a kind of fable.
104
It's a story that can teach us something, like the tortoise and the hare, or the boy
105
There are three lessons we can take away from this story
106
that can help us navigate the wilderness where science and public opinion meet.
107
First, follow the scientific consensus.
108
When a certain idea is backed by broad agreement among experts, it has already cleared an extraordinarily high bar of skepticism.
109
I trust the experts for a reason.
110
Like, when I notice an electrical outlet is broken, I could try to fix it myself, but I will at best spend much more time and do a much shabbier job than an electrician would.
111
At worst, I'll look like this.
112
You'll have better information and get better outcomes when you trust the process of science.
113
So when there is scientific consensus, pay attention to it.
114
Second, when there isn't yet consensus, we should be skeptical of science -related claims we encounter and keep in mind that a single study doesn't settle anything.
115
The studies we do hear about, the ones that make headlines, are the ones that have a surprising or attention -grabbing angle.
116
But a single study is just one pebble of evidence on the pile.
117
experts say about it to understand how that study compares to the rest of the evidence, and how much it actually changes what we know.
118
Third, in science, challenging or debating an idea has a very different meaning than it often has in everyday life.
119
Even with a strong consensus, not every scientist agrees on every detail of an issue.
120
But scientists don't hold evidence back or try to keep other scientists from finding the flaws in their argument.
121
They put it all on the table.
122
evidence in good faith so that their ideas can be challenged well.
123
That's the whole point.
124
I'll be back.
125
Oh, is that a teaser?
126
Yeah, it might be.
127
Bye, people.
128
Hope you enjoyed your sage advice.
129
Thanks, sage.
130
There are times when scientific knowledge seems controversial to the public eye, but actually isn't controversial among the experts who know it best.
131
That's why the argument that smoking causes cancer wasn't just an opinion among other opinions.
132
scientific consensus is so impactful because it happens independent of those external considerations.
133
And it's why science, the process, is so powerful at helping us become less wrong over time.
134
As we wrap up this series, I'll leave you with this: When we recognize how science really works, the world makes so much more sense.
135
We can be skeptical of individual studies, yet place trust in the collective process.
136
before it becomes widely accepted knowledge, yet be open to ideas changing with new evidence.
137
And we can know that if an idea is wrong, there's a good chance scientists will find out.
138
From all of us here at Crash Course, thanks for watching.
139
This episode of Crash Course Scientific Thinking was produced in partnership with HHMI Biointeractive,
140
bringing real science stories to thousands of high school and undergrad life science classrooms.
141
If you're a teacher, visit their website for resources that explore the topics we discussed in the video today.
142
Thanks for watching this episode of Crash Course Scientific Thinking, which was filmed in Missoula, Montana, and made with the help of all these nice people.
143
If you'd like to help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever, you can join our community, on Patreon.
Scarica l'app
Tutto ciò che serve per parlare fluentemente
Pronuncia con IAVoto per ogni frase
Pratica IPAPadroneggia ogni suono
VocabolarioCostruisci il tuo lessico
Gioco di vocabolarioImpara giocando
Stesso Canale
C11
Vectors and 2D Motion: Crash Course Physics #4
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B21
The Bicameral Congress: Crash Course Government and Politics #2
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B21
Crash Course US History Preview
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C1What's all the Yellen About? Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve: Crash Course Economics #10
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
How Water Shapes the Land: Crash Course Geology #9
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B24
How Often do Asteroids Hit the Earth?: Crash Course Geology #20
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
B210
Crash Course Sex Ed Preview
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
Derivatives: Crash Course Physics #2
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
Indus Valley Civilization: Crash Course World History #2
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B22
Ancient Egypt: Crash Course World History #4
Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
C12
What is Engineering?: Crash Course Engineering #1
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
The Persians & Greeks: Crash Course World History #5
Cambridge Exam PrepHigh School StudentsUniversity Students
C13
The Secret to Business Writing: Crash Course Business - Soft Skills #3
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
Supervised Learning: Crash Course AI #2
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1Why Are US Politics Today So Divisive?: Crash Course US Government #1
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
The Periodic Table: Crash Course Chemistry #4
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
B22
Where Do Diamonds Come From?: Crash Course Geology #8
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C11
Tissues, Part 1: Crash Course Anatomy & Physiology #2
Cambridge Exam PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
The Nucleus: Crash Course Chemistry #1
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
FOR YOU
Video consigliato
C191
38 frasi
Crash Course Scientific Thinking Preview
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
284 frasi
Why do people smoke?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
40 frasi
The Reason Why Cancer is so Hard to Beat
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C17
23 frasi
Your Brain on Drugs: Marijuana
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
41 frasi
Micro-Biology: Crash Course History of Science #24
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C18
113 frasi
Climate Change Debate | Barry Gardiner MP | Proposition (3/8)
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
259 frasi
We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
233 frasi
Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C16
32 frasi
Anti-matter & nuclear weapons: Why technology is always a double-edge sword | Don Lincoln
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
210 frasi
The Latest Developments in Age Reversal Research
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C119
107 frasi
Sheldocracy Is the Only Ethical Solution | Young Sheldon
American AccentIELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C14
25 frasi
How Radioactive Are Your Teeth?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
Vocabolario e note di pronuncia per questa lezione
Questo video contiene 143 frasi e 1908 parole da ripetere con lo shadowing. Il parlato dura 12:18. Chi parla ha un ritmo naturale di circa 155 parole al minuto, vicino a una conversazione quotidiana. Il 82% delle parole rientra nelle 3.000 più comuni dell’inglese; conviene studiare le altre prima di iniziare.
Vocaboli chiave di questo video
15 parole del video che vale la pena imparare, con pronuncia e significato:
| Parola | Pronuncia | Significato |
|---|---|---|
| tobacco sostantivo | /təˈbækoʊ/ | tabacco |
| cigarette sostantivo | /ˈsɪɡəɹɛt/ | sigaretta |
| scientist sostantivo | /ˈsaɪəntəst/ | scienziato, scienziata |
| lung sostantivo | /ˈlʌŋ/ | polmone |
| consensus sostantivo | /kənˈsɛnsəs/ | consenso |
| explanation sostantivo | /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/ | spiegazione, esplicazione |
| settle verbo | /ˈsɛtəl/ | risolvere |
| controversial aggettivo | /ˌkɑn.tɹəˈvɝ.ʃəl/ | controverso |
| narrative sostantivo | /ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/ | descrizione |
| mouse sostantivo | /maʊs/ | topo, sorcio |
| controversy sostantivo | /kənˈtɹɒv.ə.si/ | controversia |
| tension sostantivo | /ˈtɛnʃən/ | tensione |
| pile sostantivo | /paɪl/ | mucchio, catasta |
| weigh verbo | /weɪ/ | pesare |
| correlation sostantivo | /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/ | correlazione, nesso |
I phrasal verb che sentirai
| Parola | Pronuncia | Significato |
|---|---|---|
| figure out verbo | scoprire, rendersi conto | |
| find out verbo | scoprire | |
| make up verbo | /ˌmeɪk ˈʌp/ | comporsi |
| wrap up verbo | imballare, impacchettare |
La grammatica di questo video
Le strutture che chi parla usa di più, con le parole esatte del video:
| Struttura | Nel video |
|---|---|
| Forma passiva be + participio passato — conta ciò che accade, non chi lo fa | being bombarded · were still invested · was formed |
| Frasi relative who / which + frase — un’informazione in più su una persona o una cosa | Committee, which was · Thinking, which was |
Pronuncia a cui fare attenzione
Chi parla usa 30 contrazioni e forme ridotte, come can't, I'll, wasn't. Pronunciale nella forma breve, così come le senti.
- I suoni “sh” e “zh”: explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, controversial /ˌkɑn.tɹəˈvɝ.ʃəl/, tension /ˈtɛnʃən/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, partnership /ˈpɑɹtnɚʃɪp/
- Parole lunghe — attenzione all’accento: explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, controversial /ˌkɑn.tɹəˈvɝ.ʃəl/, controversy /kənˈtɹɒv.ə.si/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, electrical /ɪˈlɛktɹɪkəl/
Come esercitarsi con questo video
- Ascolta tutto il video una volta senza parlare e annota le parole che non conosci.
- Inizia a velocità 0,75×, fai shadowing frase per frase e torna alla velocità normale quando diventa facile.
- Registrati e confronta con l’originale, facendo attenzione a parole come tobacco, cigarette, scientist.
Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?
Shadowing è una tecnica di apprendimento delle lingue supportata da studi scientifici, originariamente sviluppata per la formazione dei traduttori professionisti e resa popolare dal poliglotta Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Il metodo è semplice ma potente: ascolti un audio in inglese di madrelingua e lo ripeti immediatamente ad alta voce — come un'ombra che segue il parlante con un ritardo di solo 1–2 secondi. A differenza dell'ascolto passivo o degli esercizi di grammatica, lo shadowing costringe il tuo cervello e i muscoli della bocca a elaborare e riprodurre simultaneamente i modelli di discorso reale. La ricerca dimostra che migliora significativamente la precisione della pronuncia, l'intonazione, il ritmo, il discorso connesso, la comprensione dell'ascolto e la fluidità del parlato — rendendolo uno dei metodi più efficaci per la preparazione alla prova di speaking dell'IELTS e per la comunicazione reale in inglese.