쉐도잉 연습: What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7 - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

각 모드는 전체 화면 연습실로 열립니다.

143 문장

문장이 너무 짧거나 길면 Edit를 눌러 조정하세요.

Smoking causes cancer.

I know that, you know that, and the tobacco industry definitely knows that.

But not all that long ago.

You couldn't even watch Saturday morning cartoons without being bombarded with messages that cigarettes aren't that bad for you.

Tobacco companies ran ads in magazines and periodicals saying that numerous scientists question smoking's risks,

that there are many possible causes of lung cancer, and that there's no proof cigarette smoking is one of them. was true.

Hi, I'm Hank Green, and this is Crash Course Scientific Thinking.

Before scientific knowledge reaches people like you and me, it takes a long, arduous journey.

And big stretches of it are dedicated to collecting, testing, and scrutinizing empirical evidence,

information collected through rigorous scientific methods that either support or refute an idea.

The vast majority of scientific progress hums along quietly, its evidence becoming widely accepted without much hullabaloo.

You won't hear pundits debate whether carbon has six protons, the mating behavior of sea slugs.

Though I, for one, definitely would and do read those articles.

But here's the thing: sometimes, science produces a nugget of knowledge that resists the status quo.

It challenges an economic system, or a hierarchy, or a choice people make in their lives.

And when it lands with the public, tensions can flare.

Which is what happened in 1964 with smoking.

So in this episode, we're going to do two things.

First, we'll peel back the curtain on how the scientific process pieced together evidence about the risks of smoking.

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.

At the beginning of the 20th century, lung cancer was so rare, doctors treated cases of it like once -in -a -lifetime learning opportunities.

lung cancer rates started to spike, and scientists began working to figure out why.

There were a lot of early ideas about the possible cause.

Maybe it was atmospheric pollution or newly paved roads.

Maybe it was x -rays, poison gas from World War I, or the after -effects of the 1918 flu pandemic.

Those were all correlations.

But as we learned in an earlier episode, correlation doesn't mean causation.

So over two decades, scientists tested different explanations and shared the results with each other.

was like a pebble added to a pile of evidence.

Scientists had to weigh that evidence by examining each study skeptically and asking things like: How well was the study designed?

Did it find a strong or weak relationship to lung cancer?

And how directly did the methods actually get at the question they were trying to answer?

For some explanations, no evidence emerged.

You're off the hook, Flew.

But eventually, four main lines of evidence pointed to one suspect: Exhibit A: Observational studies,

which had followed groups of people over a period of time, showed that smokers developed lung cancer at higher rates than nonsmokers.

But there were other factors in people's lives that could be affecting cancer rates, so these studies alone weren't enough.

Enter Exhibit B: Experimental studies were done on mice, because you can better control conditions in a lab.

And mice exposed to tobacco developed tumors.

smoke.

Exhibit C: Further studies showed that cigarette smoke destroys cilia, the tiny structures in lungs that keep out bad stuff.

And finally, Exhibit D: Tobacco smoke itself contains a chemical compound

that was previously shown to cause cancer in people exposed to coal tar.

All that evidence, when weighed collectively, began to tip the scales.

By the late 1950s, scientists had reached a consensus: widespread agreement given all the evidence

that smoking was the leading cause of lung cancer.

So, in 1964, the US Surgeon General, himself a smoker, announced to reporters that cigarettes cause lung cancer.

But for the public, that message got drowned out by a lot of noise.

So let's rewind the take.

the public view.

Even in the 1930s, people suspected smoking wasn't exactly great for you.

But tobacco companies worked to stay ahead of the narrative, boasting that their cigarettes were "healthier,

safer, gentler, fresh as mountain air." The RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ran ads citing studies

that claimed more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette.

And you want cigarettes and then asking them what kind of cigarettes they smoked.

I mean, come on!

By the 1950s, tobacco companies knew about the mounting scientific evidence.

But they were still invested in selling their product.

So they changed the message.

Instead of "Our cigarettes are better for you," the ads became "We don't know yet

if cigarettes are bad for you." And by doing so, they manufactured a controversy that didn't actually exist.

This is where things get wild.

In 1954, a committee called the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was formed by the tobacco companies,

released a statement claiming the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't settled, and they would be researching the issue themselves.

These people would have thrived on social media.

This went on for decades, long after the scientific consensus had been settled.

The tobacco industry distracted from smoking's harms by funding and publicizing research

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,

and blasted ads that made cigarettes seem as enticing as possible.

They did all of this knowingly and strategically to keep making money.

A 1969 internal memo at the tobacco company Brown & Williamson stated: "Doubt is our product,

since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public.

means of establishing a controversy.

Wow.

They just said it.

And selling that doubt worked.

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.

Especially when it challenges something we already do or think.

The news that smoking causes cancer just didn't vibe with a world where smoking was common, widely accepted, and everybody did it.

Doctors, astronauts, movie stars.

Plus, cigarettes are highly addictive.

more attention to reasons to keep doing that thing.

And the tobacco industry was willing to give smokers those reasons, even though the reasons were made up.

They systematically attacked the widely accepted scientific explanation in order to sow doubt among the public.

But here's what finally turned the tide against smoking.

In the 1990s, scientists uncovered evidence of exactly how cigarette smoke can trigger a normal cell to become a cancerous cell.

pay up billions of dollars for the damage they had caused.

The writing was on the wall.

But the tobacco industry still tried to spin the narrative.

The message this time?

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.

Which brings me to another common point of tension that can make scientific knowledge seem controversial.

Sometimes, scientific knowledge clashes with people's values.

like the precise mechanism that causes a cell to become cancerous, or how much smoking increases your individual risk of developing cancer.

But science can't tell us what to do with that knowledge.

It's on us, as individuals and as societies, to decide what to do now that we know what we know.

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.

the science, it was about how that knowledge should mesh with values.

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.

앱 다운로드

유창하게 말하는 데 필요한 모든 것

AI 발음 평가문장마다 점수 확인

IPA 발음 연습모든 소리 마스터

단어 학습나만의 단어장 만들기

단어 게임놀면서 외우기

QR 스캔

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

같은 채널

The Bicameral Congress: Crash Course Government and Politics #2

Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity 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

Defense Against the Dark Arts of Influence: Crash Course Business Soft Skills #2

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

FOR YOU

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 143개와 단어 1908개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 12:18입니다. 화자는 분당 약 155단어로, 일상 대화에 가까운 자연스러운 속도로 말합니다. 단어의 82%가 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속합니다. 나머지는 연습 전에 미리 확인해 두세요.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 익혀 둘 만한 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
tobacco 명사	/təˈbækoʊ/	담배, 연초
cigarette 명사	/ˈsɪɡəɹɛt/	담배, 궐련
scientist 명사	/ˈsaɪəntəst/	과학자
lung 명사	/ˈlʌŋ/	허파, 폐
consensus 명사	/kənˈsɛnsəs/	합의
explanation 명사	/ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/	설명
controversial 형용사	/ˌkɑn.tɹəˈvɝ.ʃəl/	논쟁의 여지가있는
narrative 명사	/ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/	설화, 이야기
mouse 명사	/maʊs/	생쥐, 쥐
controversy 명사	/kənˈtɹɒv.ə.si/	논쟁, 토론
tension 명사	/ˈtɛnʃən/	긴장, 불안
pile 명사	/paɪl/	무더기
weigh 동사	/weɪ/	달다
sage 명사	/seɪd͡ʒ/	세이지
topic 명사	/ˈtɑpɪk/	화제, 주제

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
wrap up 동사	시마이치다

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	being bombarded · were still invested · was formed
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	Committee, which was · Thinking, which was

주의할 발음

화자는 can't, I'll, wasn't 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 30번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“sh”와 “zh” 소리: explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, controversial /ˌkɑn.tɹəˈvɝ.ʃəl/, tension /ˈtɛnʃən/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, partnership /ˈpɑɹtnɚʃɪp/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, controversial /ˌkɑn.tɹəˈvɝ.ʃəl/, controversy /kənˈtɹɒv.ə.si/, correlation /ˌkɔɹ.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, electrical /ɪˈlɛktɹɪkəl/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
0.75배속으로 한 문장씩 섀도잉을 시작하고, 익숙해지면 보통 속도로 돌아갑니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, tobacco, cigarette, scientist 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7 - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

앱 다운로드

The Bicameral Congress: Crash Course Government and Politics #2

Crash Course US History Preview

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

How Water Shapes the Land: Crash Course Geology #9

How Often do Asteroids Hit the Earth?: Crash Course Geology #20

Crash Course Sex Ed Preview

Derivatives: Crash Course Physics #2

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

The Periodic Table: Crash Course Chemistry #4

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

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

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

The Nucleus: Crash Course Chemistry #1

Defense Against the Dark Arts of Influence: Crash Course Business Soft Skills #2

Crash Course Scientific Thinking Preview

Why do people smoke?

The Reason Why Cancer is so Hard to Beat

Your Brain on Drugs: Marijuana

Micro-Biology: Crash Course History of Science #24

Climate Change Debate | Barry Gardiner MP | Proposition (3/8)

We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

Anti-matter & nuclear weapons: Why technology is always a double-edge sword | Don Lincoln

The Latest Developments in Age Reversal Research

How Radioactive Are Your Teeth?

The Most Controversial Problem in Philosophy