跟讀練習: Evaluating Sources & Fact Checking: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #6 - 通過影片學習英語口語
選擇練習模式
每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。
142 句
如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。
1
Are you eating a credit card's worth of plastic every week?
2
Uh, probably not.
3
But if you saw headlines like this, you might worry that you are.
4
These days, trying to piece together what to believe can feel impossible.
5
But we can still find reliable, trustworthy answers, as long as we know how to look for them.
6
Hi, I'm Hank Green, and welcome to Crash Course Scientific Thinking.
7
You probably already know that you shouldn't believe everything read, watch, or hear.
8
On an internet where everyone is competing both for attention and to control narratives, it's no surprise that there are plenty of distortions,
9
exaggerations, baseless claims, propaganda, and whatever this is.
10
But it's also home to lots of good scientific information, too.
11
So when it comes to something as important as science, how do we figure out what's reliable?
12
Well, it helps to understand how a science story like this becomes news in the first place.
13
See, that CNN article isn't the whole story.
14
It's just the part we see as consumers of science news.
15
That science news tastes bad.
16
Think of it like the tip of the iceberg.
17
There's a lot more going on below the surface.
18
CNN got the details from this report by the WWF.
19
No, not the wrestling group from the 90s, the Worldwide Fund for Nature.
20
And they got it from a study they commissioned from researchers at Australia's University of Newcastle,
21
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.
22
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,
23
about the size of a credit card.
24
And that technically could be true.
25
It could be that much.
26
There's a lot of things that could be true.
27
It's like when an insurance company says, I could save you up to 15% or more on your car insurance.
28
Up to 15% or more?
29
That's all of the percents.
30
So why would they do that?
31
Well, different kinds of publications have different kinds of goals.
32
And as a savvy consumer of science media, it's helpful for you to consider what those goals might be.
33
Like, the WWF is a nonprofit advocacy group whose goal is to preserve nature through lobbying and research.
34
So they might really want to sound the alarm about microplastics in order to bring people into their broader mission.
35
Considering an outlet's goals gives us, as consumers, more information to consider.
36
It gives us a broader context than just the story would alone.
37
And while I would agree that microplastics are a big deal, only reporting on the upper range to make the situation feel more urgent
38
and headline-worthy can make a situation seem a lot more dire than it actually is, and intentionally or not, be misleading.
39
News organizations, by the way, also have goals that we should take into consideration.
40
the goal to get a lot of people to click on an article.
41
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.
42
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.
43
The primary source is the most accurate representation of what the scientists who conducted the research actually found.
44
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.
45
So what happened between the primary source and CNN?
46
Well, the Newcastle team got their results and shared them with the WWF.
47
It was then written into a report by consultants who had
48
not conducted the research directly in what we would call a secondary source.
49
And this secondary source only listed the upper range of plastic we could be eating.
50
Those are the numbers that got picked up by CNN.
51
In science, news articles are often tertiary sources.
52
They summarize the information of primary and secondary sources, and are usually not written by scientists.
53
Sometimes when science gets reported, it can also get distorted.
54
Sometimes it's an honest mistake, someone somewhere along the way got their facts mixed up.
55
We call that misinformation.
56
Information that is wrong or misleading.
57
But because, as the kids say, we live in a society, we also have to worry about disinformation.
58
that is intentionally misleading or false.
59
But here's the thing.
60
None of this means that we have to stop trusting reputable news organizations, or even advocacy organizations like the WWF wholesale.
61
It just means we need to be more diligent when we are consuming news.
62
And good science journalists have learned to navigate the scientific community.
63
They often have experts they can reach out to for second opinions,
64
and they present useful context behind a story to help the reader understand how the news fits into larger conversations in science.
65
So, what does this mean for us?
66
How can we, as non-scientists and non-journalists, dig down and figure out when a story is reliable and when it isn't?
67
I think it's time for some sage advice.
68
That's the key, Hank.
69
You don't dig, you sift.
70
It's a way of evaluating sources developed by digital literacy expert Mike Caulfield from the University of Washington.
71
The S stands for stop.
72
Stop.
73
When you see something that triggers a strong emotional response, you should stop and really think about what you're reading.
74
So don't immediately text everyone I know and tell them
75
that they couldn't book a flight with all the microplastics inside of them.
76
Got it.
77
What's next?
78
Ah, investigate the source, the place that published the information.
79
Who's putting it out there? And why?
80
In this case, we're looking at CNN.
81
How do we find out if CNN is a reputable source?
82
Well, we know they've been around for over 40 years.
83
But let's investigate a bit further.
84
So let's open a new tab and get the scoop on CNN.
85
It looks like they're in the green zone on this media bias chart from Harvard Library's research guides.
86
We call this strategy lateral reading.
87
Checking other websites, newspapers, and media guides like this one to make sure
88
that the source you're getting the original information from is on the up and up.
89
So if the original source is trustworthy, then we're good?
90
Not yet.
91
Up next is F.
92
Find better coverage.
93
Using those same lateral reading skills, we need to check if other sources are reporting the same thing.
94
What are other outlets reporting?
95
In this case, we can find some other sources citing the credit card stat.
96
But we can also find reputable sources saying that it's misleading.
97
If other reputable sources are disagreeing, it's a sign to take the source you found with a grain of salt.
98
If other sources are agreeing, then it's a good sign you can dig deeper into what you read.
99
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.
同頻道
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
推薦影片
C12
138 句
Statistical Thinking in Science: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #2
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B2271
21 句
Turn Off The Tap | Plastic Bank | David Katz 2 Minute TED Talk
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepBusiness English
C110
61 句
When you can't trust who you hear – C1 English Listening Test
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
189 句
Creatine: is there truth behind the hype?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
131 句
How Ultra-Processed Foods Took Over America And Can Even Pass For Healthy | Business Insider
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C111
201 句
The AI Bubble Survives on $1.65 Trillion in Hidden Debt
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
133 句
Carbon Fiber - The Material Of The Future?
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
67 句
The strange science of your ever-changing identity
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
388 句
Targeting Belly Fat Is... Possible?! (NEW Study)
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
50 句
We Fell For The Oldest Lie On The Internet
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C16
261 句
The Human Element
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C118
160 句
Stop Walking 10,000 Steps/Day (do this for 10 minutes instead)
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
關於本課程
在本課程中，學習者將學習如何評估資訊來源並進行事實檢查，讓你的科學思維更為有效。通過分析新聞報道和科學研究之間的關係，你將掌握識別可靠資訊的技巧。同時，你將練習如何提高英語發音，以便更好地理解和分享這些知識。
關鍵詞彙與短語
- 塑膠消費 - 指人們在飲食中攝入塑膠的情況。
- 科學新聞 - 關於科學研究和發現的報道。
- 主要來源 - 指研究人員最初發布的研究結果。
- 次要來源 - 通過解讀或總結其他研究釋出的資訊。
- 非營利組織 - 以特定目標而非營利為目的的機構，例如保護環境的組織。
- 資訊失真 - 不準確或誤導性的報道。
- 危機意識 - 對某一問題的緊迫性或嚴重性的感知。
- 引人注目的標題 - 為了吸引讀者點選而設計的新聞標題。
練習技巧
在觀看影片時，使用 shadow speak的方法來提升你的英語發音。雖然影片的語速較快，但你可以通過暫停影片並重復每個句子的方式來跟讀。注意發音、語調和停頓，這樣可以更好地提高你的口語技能。在使用 shadowspeak 技術時，可以嘗試模仿影片中演講者的語氣和風格，增強你的語音表達能力。與此同時，運用 shadow speech 方法，反覆練習所學的關鍵詞彙與短語，不僅能幫助你記憶，更能提升你的自信心，讓你在 看YouTube學英語 的過程中獲得豐富的學習體驗。
影片中的語法
說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：
| 結構 | 影片中的用法 |
|---|---|
| 被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的 | was then written · are usually not written · being taken |
| 現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事 | have learned · they've been · has been |
| 定語從句 who / which + 從句 — 補充說明人或事物 | range, which was · group which is · Thinking, which was |
什麼是跟讀法？
跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。