The subject asked about the rumor of "high quality". I don't think those famous fishing nets that many people think are counted. Most of the so-called phishing articles on the Internet are simply unscientific and the quality is far from good. Different from general rumors, scientific rumors can be proved or falsified to some extent, depending on their content and purpose.
Generally speaking, a relatively technical scientific rumor has the following elements:
1. 1 text quality
Whether writing a report or dispelling rumors, the most basic requirement is to use words: whether there are typos, whether the sentences are fluent, and whether the format is standardized ... An article with wonderful content but chaotic typography will lose a large number of readers; In the same way, a very confusing rumor full of typos is more likely to arouse suspicion.
1.2 daily relevance (audience)
In order to make rumors spread widely and cause panic, the content of rumors must be close to the daily life of the audience, especially some activities that are indispensable every day, such as eating (food safety), sleeping (electronic product radiation), physical activity (air quality), etc ... Generally, when hearing "possible dangers" in daily activities, the first reaction is always "how to avoid them"; Instead of "Is this information right or wrong?"
Therefore, for ordinary people, news such as "microwave ovens can produce carcinogens", "salt can fight cancer" and "staying in Beijing is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes" will always attract attention at the first time and show an explosive spread trend. Although the rumor "Polaris is the brightest star in the northern hemisphere" appeared in the same period, it is almost difficult to refute it, and the attention it caused is not an order of magnitude.
In more detail, for example, if you want to spread a message about "Watermelon contains sweeteners", it will undoubtedly be more efficient to tell housewives and students than to publicize it among business people; If you want to spread a message about "20 minutes in the London underground is equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigarettes", it is undoubtedly more reliable to tell international students and office workers than to tell young people driving sports cars on the street; If you want to spread a message that "eating meat is easy to cause cancer" and spread it in medical schools, it is estimated that it will have no effect.
1.3 science
A successful scientific rumor, science is essential. In most people's minds, rumors are rumors because they are "unscientific"; Since we can falsify, what science can we talk about?
What I want to talk about here is a kind of "imprecise science".
There are many elements of "science" and "popular science" in our daily life, and most of them are not rigorous: from "the structure of atomic nucleus is similar to the sun" and "temperature is a measure of heat and cold" in junior high school textbooks to "chemicals in cosmetics will harm the skin" and "drinking water for a long time will become harmful substances" which are often mentioned in life, mostly for the convenience of people's understanding and memory. However, scientific rumors have grasped this feature, imitated "common sense" and mixed with all kinds of information, which is even more difficult to distinguish.
"All behaviors that talk about toxicity without dose are hooliganism" is a widely used means in scientific rumors. These rumors are often inferred from scientific facts, but they forget the most basic dose problem and turn quantitative conclusions into qualitative conclusions. Here are several such inferences. I believe you have seen many rumors similar to logic:
Eating shrimp and a lot of vitamins at the same time may affect human health → Eating shrimp and vitamins at the same time will produce toxic substances → Eating seafood and foods rich in vitamins is easy to be poisoned → Last week, a girl in Taiwan Province Province died suddenly after eating seafood and vitamins at the same time.
Drinking more than 10 L of water every day is easy to cause water poisoning → Drinking 10 L of drinks every day will cause poisoning → Drinks will cause poisoning → Drinks are poisonous! Food safety in China is worrying! What's wrong with this society ...
Eating too much red meat every day may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease → Eating red meat every day may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease → Eating red meat may lead to heart disease → China cannot eat red meat, which is harmful to the heart. Please tell your family! ……
1.4 Cite scientific research achievements
If we can quote scientific research results in rumors, it will definitely greatly increase the "credibility" of rumors. For example, any logical chain mentioned in 1.3 can refer to the original scientific research results, which will make the rumors more confusing. However, in today's highly developed Internet, inappropriately citing scientific research results or even fabricating them will only make rumors look "tasteless" and more easily refuted.
For example, in the rumor of "distant ancestors" that circulated wildly in previous years:
According to the latest research report of Dr. Gossip from the British Institute of Anthropology, ...
Anyone who has learned a little English can see that this is a rumor, and if "Dr. Gossip" is replaced by an ordinary name like "Dr. Davis", I believe that not many netizens will take the time to do some research to find out whether this person exists.
2. Counterexample: classic but low-quality rumors
So, are the widely spread rumors all high-quality scientific rumors? The answer is obviously no, and then I will try to analyze several rumors (including phishing articles) that are very popular on the Internet and talk about why they are "unscientific".
Let me make it clear here that I am very opposed to fishing articles. I hate people who invent fishing articles and fishing status in order to show their poor "IQ superiority". When you look for superiority from someone who is more stupid than yourself, how insecure will you be?
2. 1 lowest level: concept confusion
Example: Scientific research shows that HCl exists widely in people's stomachs in China, which is a corrosive strong acid. Food in China is safe. ...
Analysis: the state of fishing for fishing is easily cracked. Similarly, Ye admitted taking a stimulant named (2R, 3S, 4R, 5r)-2,3,4,5,6-pentahydroxyhexanal before the competition; Water contains a lot of hydrogen monoxide, which can lead to poisoning. ...
With the popularization of nine-year compulsory education in China, most similar jokes can only deceive primary school students and a few people who are extremely short of basic scientific knowledge.
2.2 Categorization: citing false documents and false terms.
Example: High-speed Railway —— Open the Box of Group Geological Disasters Quietly.
Professor Zhang Shimai from Xi 'an Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, after a comprehensive and detailed study, came to the conclusion that "the geology of China is not suitable for building high-speed rail".
He believes that under the geological conditions in China, the "Scheffer force" generated by high-speed rail will lead to a serious "Stephen King effect" on a chain, which will lead to mass geological disasters. Before his death, he strongly suggested that if high-speed rail must be built, I hope that the construction of high-speed rail can at least ensure the use of ballasted track beds.
Analysis: The original author has made a statement that the so-called "experts", "Shaffery" and "Stephen King effect" are all fictitious, and this rumor can be known by a little search on the Internet. It takes advantage of the fact that people believe that "it looks scientific" and are too lazy to prove it themselves (which is why most scientific rumors have many flaws but can be widely circulated).
Apart from the fabricated content, the writing of this article is very good in everyone's fishing articles.
2.3 advanced: trying to prove by scientific methods
For example: Is pi really equal to 3. 14? The accuracy of our textbooks is less than 5%, even mathematics is no exception. "e) relationship.
3.3 Summary information
The conclusions under each subhead are summarized as follows:
1. Long-term daily intake of soft drinks will lead to high energy intake (no panic).
A study on a group of boys shows that long-term daily intake of soft drinks will lead to weight gain within one year, but this report does not mention the relationship between daily calorie intake changes (available)
3. Previous 13 research shows that the intake of soft drinks will lead to the decrease of calcium intake; 1 article shows that there is no significant relationship between soft drink intake and calcium intake; Another 1 document shows that the intake of soft drinks may be positively correlated with the intake of calcium (the result is uncertain).
4. Like 3, there are various results in the literature.
3.4 Organization text
If you want to make up a short rumor: use 2, the effect is clear and it is easy to cause panic.
"The American Journal of Public Health published a study by Dr. Lenny R, which confirmed that no matter how much you eat every day, drinking Coke will lead to obesity."
If you make up a long rumor: properly combine the conclusion and selectively quote the literature that is beneficial to the conclusion.
"Coke spermicide? Coke causes cancer? Is osteoporosis caused by cola? For a long time, these rumors were considered as rumors. However, in a study [1] by Dr. Lenny R cited in the American Journal of Public Health in 2007, it was confirmed that cola does have a series of serious effects on human body functions, even endangering health.
People always think that coke is cool and thirst-quenching, and will not increase too many calories, but this is not the case. A middle school in the United States requires boys to drink coke every day and record their weight. A year later, something amazing happened: all the boys gained weight, and some even changed from normal weight to obesity. More studies also show that the intake of cola is closely related to weight gain. Even a small can can bring you a lot of sugar, which can be converted into thick fat.
The sugar content of a can of coke has exceeded the maximum daily intake recommended by the United Nations Health Organization, which may easily lead to tooth decay, decreased immunity, malnutrition, obesity and other consequences. Do you dare to drink coke after reading these scientific reports? The coke you drink today will become an arrow on your knee tomorrow, breaking the stone in your body ... "
Quote:
Journal of public health. 2007; 97:667–675.doi: 10.2 105/AJPH
[2] Jamatai J, Blix G, Marshak HH, Voritseo, Petit DJ. Watching TV and soft drink consumption: 1 1- 13-year-old school-age children and obesity. Pediatrics and adolescent medicine. 2003; 157: 882–886.
In the above editing process, the measures taken are:
Fuzzy goal: change all soft drinks into coke.
Fuzzy dose: drinking a lot of cola is related to obesity → drinking cola leads to obesity.
Cite real documents and real authors.
Adopt a "scientific" writing format
Selectively ignore the facts that are unfavorable to the article (at the same time, many studies have shown that cola is not related to obesity)
Overdeductive injury
Use alarmist words
Of course, my writing is not good. This is just a small example.
4. How to judge whether a rumor is true or false?
After writing so much, how can you judge whether the source of the news is reliable or whether the news is credible? In combination with the above, you can write a lot, but in summary, there is only one principle: think twice before "believing".
Whether it's about the source of the article, Google, or asking students of related majors around you, after seeing the news, make more judgments; Even if you have no judgment, don't spread alarmist news easily, which is also a good way to kill rumors.
Reprinted to Zhihu Daily.