Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • "New drug may cure cancer."

    譯者: Ann Chen 審譯者: Carol Wang

  • "Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks."

    [你能點出這些標題 要如何改進嗎?]

  • "Eating breakfast can help you lose weight."

    「新藥可能可以治癌症」

  • Health headlines like these flood the news,

    「阿司匹林可能會 降低心臟病發作的風險」

  • often contradicting each other.

    「吃早餐可以幫助減重」

  • So how can you figure out what's a genuine health concern

    像這樣充斥新聞的醫藥標題,

  • or a truly promising remedy,

    往往相互矛盾。

  • and what's less conclusive?

    那麼,你如何辨別 哪些是真正的健康議題

  • In medicine,

    或真正有希望的療法,

  • there's often a disconnect between news headlines

    以及哪些是較沒有確證的呢?

  • and the scientific research they cover.

    醫學上,

  • That's because a headline is designed to catch attention

    新聞標題與其報導的 科學研究之間常不一致。

  • it's most effective when it makes a big claim.

    這是因為標題旨在吸引注意──

  • By contrast,

    當新聞做出重大宣佈時是最有效的。

  • many scientific studies produce meaningful results

    相對地,

  • when they focus on a narrow, specific question.

    許多科學研究專注於 限定的特定問題時,

  • The best way to bridge this gap

    才會產生有意義的結果。

  • is to look at the original research behind a headline.

    彌補這一差距的最佳方法

  • We've come up with a simplified research scenario

    是去查看標題背後的原始研究。

  • for each of these three headlines to test your skills.

    針對下面三個標題, 我們分別給出了簡單的研究情境,

  • Keep watching for the explanation of the first study;

    來測試你的技巧。

  • then pause at the headline to figure out the flaw.

    接下來看第一項研究的解說,

  • Assume all the information you need to spot the flaw is included.

    然後在標題處暫停,找出問題所在。

  • Let's start with this hypothetical scenario:

    假定你點出問題所需要的信息 都已涵蓋在內了。

  • a study using mice to test a new cancer drug.

    我們先從這個假設場景開始:

  • The study includes two groups of mice,

    一項使用老鼠 測試新抗癌藥物的研究。

  • one treated with the drug, the other with a placebo.

    該研究包括兩組老鼠,

  • At the end of the trial,

    一組用藥物治療,另一組用安慰劑。

  • the mice that receive the drug are cured,

    在研究結束時,

  • while those that received the placebo are not.

    服用藥物的老鼠痊癒了,

  • Can you spot the problem with this headline:

    而服用安慰劑的老鼠則沒有。

  • "Study shows new drug could cure cancer"

    你能點出

  • Since the subjects of the study were mice,

    「研究顯示新藥可能會治癒癌症」

  • we can't draw conclusions about human disease based on this research.

    這個標題的問題所在嗎?

  • In real life, early research on new drugs and therapies is not conducted on humans.

    因為研究對象是老鼠,

  • If the early results are promising,

    我們無法根據這項研究 來對人類疾病下定論。

  • clinical trials follow to determine if they hold up in humans.

    實際上,新藥及治療的早期研究 並不在人體上執行。

  • Now that you've warmed up,

    如果早期結果是可行的,

  • let's try a trickier example:

    隨後的臨床實驗 會確認在人體是否也可行。

  • a study about the impact of aspirin on heart attack risk.

    現在你已小試牛刀,

  • The study randomly divides a pool of men into two groups.

    我們來試一個更棘手的例子:

  • The members of one group take aspirin daily,

    「阿司匹林對心臟病發作 風險影響的研究」。

  • while the others take a daily placebo.

    研究將一群男性隨機分為兩組,

  • By the end of the trial,

    一組成員每天服用阿司匹林,

  • the control group suffered significantly more heart attacks

    而另一組每天服用安慰劑。

  • than the group that took aspirin.

    實驗結束時,

  • Based on this situation, what's wrong with the headline:

    對照組的心臟病發作

  • "Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks"

    明顯多於服用阿司匹林組。

  • In this case, the study shows evidence that aspirin reduces heart attacks in men,

    根據這情況,

  • because all the participants were men.

    「阿司匹林可能降低心臟病發作 風險」的標題有什麼錯誤呢?

  • But the conclusionaspirin reduces risk of heart attacksis too broad;

    此例中,研究證據顯示 阿司匹林減少男性心臟病發作,

  • we can't assume that results found in men would also apply to women.

    因為所有參與者都是男性。

  • Studies often limit participants based on geographic location, age, gender,

    但「阿司匹林降低心臟病發作風險」 這樣的結論涵蓋太廣;

  • or many other factors.

    我們不能假定男性的結果 也適用於女性。

  • Before these findings can be generalized,

    研究常根據地理位置、年齡、性別

  • similar studies need to be run on other groups.

    或許多其他因素來限制參與者。

  • If a headline makes a general claim,

    在這些結果能被普遍適用前,

  • it should draw its evidence from a diverse body of research, not one study.

    需要對其他群體進行類似的研究。

  • Can you take your skills from the first two questions to the next level?

    如果標題作了普遍適用的聲明,

  • Try this example about the impact of eating breakfast on weight loss.

    它應該從多種研究群體獲得證據, 而不是單一研究。

  • Researchers recruit a group of people who had always skipped breakfast

    你能把前兩題的技巧再提升一級嗎?

  • and ask them to start eating breakfast everyday.

    試試這個關於 吃早餐對減重影響的例子。

  • The participants include men and women of a range of ages and backgrounds.

    研究人員招募了一群不吃早餐的人,

  • Over a year-long period,

    要求他們開始每天吃早餐。

  • participants lose an average of five pounds.

    參與者包括不同年齡和背景的男女。

  • So what's wrong with the headline:

    經過一年,

  • "Eating breakfast can help you lose weight"

    參與者平均減了 5 磅。

  • The people in the study started eating breakfast and lost weight

    「吃早餐有助於減重」的標題

  • but we don't know that they lost weight because they started eating breakfast;

    有什麼問題呢?

  • perhaps having their weight tracked

    實驗對象開始吃早餐後減重──

  • inspired them to change their eating habits in other ways.

    但我們不知道他們減重 是否是開始吃早餐的緣故;

  • To rule out the possibility that some other factor caused weight loss,

    也許是體重被追蹤,

  • we would need to compare these participants

    促使他們改變了飲食習慣。

  • to a group who didn't eat breakfast before the study

    為了排除某些其他因素 導致減重的可能性,

  • and continued to skip it during the study.

    我們需要將這些參與者

  • A headline certainly shouldn't claim the results of this research

    與另一組在研究前及研究中

  • are generally applicable.

    都不吃早餐的人進行比較。

  • And if the study itself made such a claim without a comparison group,

    標題真的不應該聲稱這研究成果

  • then you should question its credibility.

    是普遍適用的。

  • Now that you've battle-tested your skills

    如果研究本身 沒有對照組就做出斷言,

  • on these hypothetical studies and headlines,

    那麼你應該懷疑其可信度。

  • you can test them on real-world news.

    在虛擬研究和標題中實戰後,

  • Even when full papers aren't available without a fee,

    你不妨在真實新聞中試試身手。

  • you can often find summaries of experimental design and results

    雖然完整的研究報告是付費的,

  • in freely available abstracts,

    實驗設計和結果的概要

  • or even within the text of a news article.

    還是可以在免費的摘要、

  • Individual studies have results

    甚至新聞報導中找到。

  • that don't necessarily correspond to a grabby headline.

    個別研究的結果

  • Big conclusions for human health issues

    不一定非要寫出聳動的標題。

  • require lots of evidence accumulated over time.

    人類健康議題的重大結論,

  • But in the meantime,

    需要時間來累積大量證據。

  • we can keep on top of the science, by reading past the headlines.

    但與此同時,

"New drug may cure cancer."

譯者: Ann Chen 審譯者: Carol Wang

字幕與單字

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

B1 中級 中文 美國腔 TED-Ed 標題 研究 發作 早餐 心臟病

聳動的標題帶來麻煩 (Can you spot the problem with these headlines? (Level 1) - Jeff Leek & Lucy McGowan)

  • 896 43
    ktyvr258 發佈於 2019 年 09 月 18 日
影片單字