Video of Wang Kai's speech:
The following is a record of Wang Kai's speech:
Hello, I'm a social science researcher. I am concerned about how rumors are generated in the process of social communication.
This time last year, Science magazine published a very important article: On social media, rumors spread faster, wider and deeper than true news.
This is actually a topic worthy of attention. If we want to give a simple and rude explanation, in my opinion, it is actually: rumors are more likely to be combined with some weaknesses of human nature in many cases.
Today, I don't need data, but I will tell you three stories related to scientific rumors that I personally experienced.
The first one is: when I was a doctor, I saw a piece of news called "Dutch scientists put forward a frightening hypothesis that the sun will explode in six years?" Today, this kind of news may be dismissed by most people. After all, there must be a large number of scientists on social media to refute such a big thing, right? But in 2003, we had no social media.
The most powerful thing about this news is that it has a nose and eyes: it has scientists and scientists from different sources; Even what we media people often say? Multiple sources? , can confirm each other; There is also a special picture called. Russian scientists are observing the activities of the sun with astronomical telescopes? It looks very reliable. Global Times published this article in the scientific edition.
I'm worried about writing a doctoral thesis. After seeing the news, I felt both panic and a little relieved? Maybe I don't have to write. Of course, later, I tracked down the source in the spirit of being a communication student: I changed some English keyword searches and sent an email to a friend who was studying astronomy in the United States.
It turned out to be fabricated. The initiator is the American tabloid, which is particularly good at fabricating? Science fake news? . In fact, many media in the United States know this tabloid, but the Global Times doesn't know it, so it goes to the science edition. I saw Yahoo later, and Yahoo turned it to the entertainment page.
This news may sound absurd. But where is the problem?
Can we notice, scientific rumors, pseudoscience, or scientific fake news? I don't distinguish these three concepts carefully here? Although slightly different, they all have a common feature, that is, stealing scientific rhetoric and pretending to be scientific authority.
So I think that if people only accept fragmentary scientific knowledge and science as a powerful authority, then many times, pseudoscience can steal scientific rhetoric to shape this authority.
The picture above is the text of a high imitation scientific report, which uses a series of? Supernova? Wait a minute. If it looks scientific.
The second example is a picture of a black hole. In fact, there was a fake news about black holes a few years ago. In fact, it can't be said to be fake news, but a dramatic rumor that is constantly shocking in the process of communication.
In fact, the earliest news came from a notice issued by NASA. At first, it didn't say what it found, only that it wanted to put one? Surprising news? , or? News that surprised scientists? . After the news spread between social media and mass media, it gradually evolved into the version we saw, called? Will NASA release news that will shock all mankind? .
In fact, what is this news released by NASA? This is the first time that scientists have discovered a black hole that has grown for 3 1 year with human eyes. And this black hole is very close to human beings and the earth, only 50 million light years away.
People won't think this news is magical. Therefore, it also involves that scientists and ordinary people hold different standards for the evaluation of scientific discoveries. What we ordinary people pay more attention to is actually the novel and humanized research in scientific discovery; Even the negative part that causes fear.
So, why was this news spread? Enough news to shock all mankind? From the point of view of a news producer, is it because it has all the talents to become explosive news? News value? Elements: such as negativity, significant correlation with NASA release, novelty, etc.
Media people often use some empirical words to summarize the news with great communication effect. There are often such words, such as? Dog bites is not news, but man bites dog is news? ,? We report the plane crash, but we don't report the plane that didn't crash? , what else? Bad news is good news? .
So, in the social process, really? In fact, it is not the only standard for people to spread information. Even in my opinion, it may not be the most important criterion? People are not just because? Really? Spread sth. But? News value? In fact, it's not just the business standard of the news industry? Many times, it is also the human standard of the general public in information exchange.
Next, you can take a quiz: Who do you know among these three scientists?
Let's talk about the middle first. Everyone may know stephen william hawking, because he is so distinctive. Do you know the one on the left? John nash, only a few people will know. If I mention the movie A Beautiful Mind, many people may recall it: in game theory? Nash equilibrium? The proponent of is also a Nobel Prize winner.
The one on the far right, I don't know who I might know. Is this Edward? Is physicist and mathematician edward witten a mathematician? Fields Prize? The winner of.
I looked up some information, and he is the most influential physicist today (he is the highest among physicists today in terms of H factor), also known as contemporary? String theory? The leader of.
One year, they came to China to attend? International Congress of Mathematicians? . However, Hawking and occasionally Nash are the most important people that can be seen and often mentioned in the media. How many media will mention Edward? Witten
Why? Isn't he important?
No, he is equally important.
What's the problem? He's too normal. He has nothing human that can be caught by the media as an eye-catching thing. Of course, I'm not saying that the media should not spread Nash or Hawking here, but that the media has something to do with it. Scientific isomorphism? The criteria for judging science are often different. This difference in standards will lead to scientific discoveries and achievements being misunderstood in the process of social communication.
The third rumor is that I participated in a research project related to transgenic science. I saw a lot of news about genetic modification on social media? Or you can't talk about news, genetically modified information. The extent of its rumors is unbelievable.
For example,? Some western countries make genetically modified foods, which makes China people? Destroy the country? Weapons? This rumor is quite representative. Another category is from the perspective of health care. Genetically modified food is an anti-natural technology? . It will even be combined with the differentiation of social classes. Genetically modified food is used to feed the poor, while the rich will not eat genetically modified food? .
So the society produces genetically modified food? Complex discourse presentation? It's a topic that interests me: Why are there so many complicated rumors about genetically modified food? I think it has a lot to do with culture.
From the point of view of nutrition, food is something that provides us with nutrition; But for anthropologists, food is also a cultural system: it carries our emotions, memories, social interactions and many other things.
Two years ago, China on the Tip of the Tongue and Flavor World were popular, not only because people thought it was delicious? Then we might as well have dinner by ourselves. But it carries a lot of memories and emotions. So, some people even exaggerate? People are what they eat. 、? Tell me what you eat, and I will know what kind of person you are. .
At a deeper level, food and? Self-identity? Related. So this can also explain why in the rumor of genetically modified food, we will associate the difference between genetically modified food and non-genetically modified food with many other opposites. Including China and the West, the poor and the rich, anti-nature and nature, reasonable and unreasonable? Form a new and more complex anti-GM discourse.
Is the rumor of genetically modified food still a diet? Daily culture? And all kinds of scientific statements about genetic modification are more as a kind of? Written culture? To present. Obviously, for ordinary people, written culture is no more influential than daily culture.
It's too superficial to talk on paper, but the question is, aren't we the same? Do it. Yes What we see and what most people accept are more of these things?