Name: 判斷來源與事實查核：Crash Course 科學思維 #6 (Evaluating Sources & Fact Checking: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #6)
Uploaded: 2026-03-10T22:35:11.000Z
Duration: 10 min 14 s

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

你每週吃進去的塑膠，大概等於一張 credit card 的量嗎？

第二類條件句型

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.

不過，如果你看到這種標題，可能會覺得現在的你，好像很難拼湊出到底該相信什麼。

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

但只要我們知道怎麼找，還是能找到可靠、值得信任的答案。

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

嗨，我是 Hank Green，歡迎來到 Crash Course Scientific Thinking。

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

你大概已經知道，不該全盤相信你看到的、聽到的所有資訊。

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

在一個大家都在爭奪關注、爭奪話語權的 Internet 上，充斥著各種扭曲、誇大、毫無根據的說法、宣傳，還有

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

但它同時也是許多優質科學資訊的來源。

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

所以，當遇到像科學這麼重要的議題時，我們該怎麼分辨哪些是對的、哪些是錯的呢？

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

嗯，瞭解像這樣的科學報導是如何成為新聞的，會很有幫助。

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

你看，那篇 CNN 的報導並不是全部。

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

我們看到的只是科學新聞的消費端，覺得科學新聞不好吃的那部分。

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

CNN got the details from this report by the WWF.

CNN 的報導細節來自 WWF 的這份報告。

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

不是，不是 90 年代的那個摔角團體，是「世界自然基金會」。

And they got it from a study they commissioned from 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.

而他們是從澳洲紐卡索大學委託的研究中獲得的，該研究報告了人們每週可能攝取的塑膠量範圍，從最高的 5 克到最低的 0.1 克。

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.

但 WWF 只報導了範圍的上限，說一般人每週可能攝取大約 5 克的塑膠，大約等於一張 credit card 的份量。

而且從技術上來說，這也可能是真的。

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.

這就像保險公司說，我可以幫你省下 15% 或更多的汽車保險費。

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

嗯，不同類型的出版品有不同的目標。

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

而身為一個精明的科學媒體消費者，瞭解這些目標可能有哪些，對你很有幫助。

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

WWF 是一個非營利倡導團體，他們的目標是透過遊說和研究來保護大自然。

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

所以他們可能真的想對微塑膠發出警報，藉此吸引大家關注他們更廣泛的使命。

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

考量到一個媒體的目標，能讓我們這些消費者有更多資訊可以參考。

It gives us a broader context than just the storywood alone.

這能提供我們比單純的報導內容更廣泛的背景。

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.

雖然我同意微塑膠是個大問題，但只報導極端數據，讓情況聽起來更緊急、更值得登上頭條，可能會讓情況看起來比實際嚴重許多，無論是有意或無意，都可能誤導人。

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

順帶一提，新聞機構也有我們應該考慮的目標。

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

像是要讓很多人點擊文章的目標。

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

而標題寫著你每週可能吃下零點一公克到五公克的微塑膠，這樣是無法獲得點擊的。

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

新聞報導的內容，有時候會跟原始資料不同，也就是進行研究的科學家們的第一手資料。

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

原始資料最能準確呈現進行研究的科學家們實際發現的內容。

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.

在這個例子裡， Newcastle 的研究人員進行的這項研究是主要來源，他們報告了塑膠攝入量的可能範圍。

So what happened between the primary source and cnn?

那麼，從主要來源到 CNN 之間發生了什麼事呢？

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

嗯，Newcastle 的團隊得到了他們的研究結果，並與 WWF 分享。

It was then written into a report by consultants who had not conducted the research directly in what we would call a secondary source.

然後，由沒有直接進行研究的顧問們將其寫成一份報告，這就是我們所說的次要來源。

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

而這份次要來源只列出了我們可能吃下的塑膠的上限。

Those are the numbers that got picked up by cnn.

In science, news articles are often tertiary sources.

在科學上，新聞報導通常是第三手資料。

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

它們總結了第一手和第二手資料的資訊，通常不是由科學家撰寫。

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

有時候，科學研究在被報導時，也會失真。

Someone somewhere along the way got their facts mixed up.

We call that misinformation, information that is wrong or misleading.

我們稱之為「錯誤資訊」，也就是不正確或誤導人的資訊。

But because, as the kids say, we live in a society, we also have to worry about disinformation, information that is intentionally misleading or false.

不過，就像年輕人說的，我們活在一個社會裡，所以我們也得擔心「虛假資訊」，也就是故意誤導或不實的資訊。

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

這一切都不代表我們必須完全停止信任像 WWF 這樣信譽良好的新聞組織或倡導團體。

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

這只是表示我們在接收新聞時，需要更仔細。

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

而優秀的科學記者已經學會如何在科學界裡穿梭。

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

他們通常有專家可以聯繫，尋求第二意見。

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

而且他們會呈現故事背後有用的脈絡，幫助讀者瞭解新聞如何融入科學領域的較大討論中。

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

身為非科學家、非記者的我們，該如何深入挖掘，分辨哪些新聞可靠、哪些不可靠呢？

我想是時候來聽聽一些寶貴的建議了。

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

這是數位素養專家、華盛頓大學的 Mike Caulfield 所發展出來的一種評估來源的方法。

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

當你看到什麼讓你產生強烈情緒反應時，就應該停下來，好好思考你正在閱讀的內容。

So don't immediately text everyone I know and tell them that they could book a flight with all the microplastics inside of them.

所以，別馬上傳訊息告訴你認識的所有人，說他們可以預訂機票，因為機票裡充滿了微塑膠。

The place that published the information.

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

我們要怎麼知道 CNN 是個可靠的來源呢？

Well, we know they've been around for over 40 years, but let's investigate a bit further.

嗯，我們知道他們已經經營超過 40 年了，但我們還是要再深入調查一下。

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

所以，我們來開一個新分頁，好好了解一下 CNN 的底細。

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

從哈佛大學圖書館的研究指南中的媒體偏見圖來看，他們在這個圖上是屬於綠色區域。

我們稱這種策略為「側向閱讀」。

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.

檢查其他網站、報紙和像這樣的媒體指南，來確保你獲取原始資訊的來源是正派的。

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

所以如果原始來源值得信賴，那我們就沒問題了。

Up next is f find better coverage using those same lateral reading skills.

接下來，我們要利用這些側向閱讀技巧來找到更好的報導。

We need to check if other sources are reporting the same thing.

我們要檢查其他來源有沒有報導同樣的事情。

In this case, we can find some other sources citing the credit card station, but

這種情況下，我們可以找到一些其他來源引用了 credit card 報導，但是

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

我們也可以找到信譽良好的來源說這是誤導性的。

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

如果其他信譽良好的來源意見不同，這就表示你找到的來源要打個折扣。

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

如果其他來源意見一致，這就表示你可以深入研究你讀到的內容了。

So you've got to read not just beyond the headline, but

beyond the first source, especially before you share it.

在第一個來源之外，尤其是在分享之前。

Then you won't be surprised to hear the T. T is for trace claims to their original context.

這樣你就不會驚訝地聽到 T. T 是指追溯聲明到其原始脈絡。

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

很多時候，當我們在網路上看到引述或圖片時，它們會被斷章取義。

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

所以追溯它們的來源，可以幫助我們弄清楚我們看到的是不是完整的故事。

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

在這種情況下，CNN 的文章告訴我們，credit card 的說法來自 WWF 的文章，CNN 有連結到那篇文章。

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

在那裡，我們可以看到他們是從這份原始研究中得到這個說法的。

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

在這裡，我們可以看到資訊的原始脈絡，其中提到人類每週可能攝取 0.1 到 5 克的微塑膠。

字幕列表影片播放

判斷來源與事實查核：Crash Course 科學思維 #6 (Evaluating Sources & Fact Checking: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #6)

episode

perception

context

figure