User:You Wu Leslie/sandbox

I think the correctness of evidence is indeed determined by public opinion. In another word, only what the people think is correct is evidence.

In the long course of history, many opinions of the public and news media have distorted the existence of facts. The public is often misled by fake news reported by the news media, thereby distorting opinions. Browsing the news, I saw the headline of a website's car channel that read the following: The driver was deducted 12 points for high-speed swinging scissor hands for molesting surveillance. I think this title makes it hard to understand. Although it’s not very elegant, it’s not very elegant, but it doesn’t deduct 12 points. I memorized the traffic rules when I took the driver’s license, and there was no such thing in the traffic rules. However, When I read the news carefully, I realized that I was misled by the headline party. The fact is not that "12 points were deducted for playing scissor-hands on surveillance." It was the person who covered up the number plate in order to avoid the electronic surveillance. When he passed the electronic surveillance, he felt that he would not be caught, so he proudly made a "V"-shaped gesture to the surveillance. The police stopped him after seeing it from the surveillance, then blocked the illegal behavior of the number plate, and imposed a fine of 200 yuan with 12 points in accordance with the law, and detained his motor vehicle driving license.

Readers can only recognize this kind of headline party that deliberately misleads the public by reading the news, but now too few people read the news. I don't know how many people were misled by this title and scolded the police for being domineering. I remembered another piece of news I saw a few days ago: a tourist saw the scenery and turned his eyes too fast, causing the retina to detach. This kind of headline is also very attractive, but reading the news will raise many questions. People will know that this kind of eye-catching news is very unreliable and regard possible relevance as causality. First, is there a causal relationship between "seeing the scenery" and "turning the eyeball too fast"? Second, is there a causal relationship between "eyeballs turning too fast when viewing scenery" and "retinal detachment"? In fact, the doctor did not say that the retinal detachment was caused by viewing the scenery, but that the person’s eyes had always been problematic, which happened to be detached while traveling to see the scenery. "Looking at the scenery, the eyeball turns too fast and causes retinal detachment" is purely the reporter's imagination.

The Internet headline party has many eyeball tricks, including pornography, suspense, sensationalism, induced imagination, and labeling. The most common is this kind of false causality that shields key facts. For example, a piece of news that caused a sensation a few years ago: A man in a certain place was convicted of rape when he climbed a tree and peeped at a female neighbor’s bathing-peeping at a female neighbor’s bath and was convicted of rape. This is too absurd. This news put the judge on top The wind and waves. Later, when restoring the facts, it was discovered that public opinion was misled by reporters' reports. The man not only climbed a tree and spied on the female neighbor's bath, but also committed further acts. In order to attract attention, the reporter deliberately blocked key information. If it is said that there are further actions, it seems that it is not news. How can there be such a sensation as "climbing a tree and peeping at a female neighbor in a bath and being sentenced to rape".

Just like the previous two pieces of news, if there is no such gimmicks as “swinging scissor hands to play with surveillance”, “looking at the scenery and turning the eyeballs too fast”, and induced causality, 12 points will be deducted by simply adjusting the blocking license plate, and retinal detachment during travel will not be possible. Count news. In order to make news, we do not hesitate to distort facts and block key facts. Therefore, when the public sees an uncommon sense anecdote on the Internet, they must not immediately scold and spit, but first read the news carefully. Did the reporter block a key fact or omit it for the sake of simplicity. Key information, or blocking the chain in the middle in order to create conflict. This kind of fictitious causal title party caters to and exploits the impetuousness of the audience. It only looks at the title without reading the content, only looks at the novelty but does not look at the facts, and prefers simplicity to avoid complexity. When you read the news, when you browse the headlines, you can easily get poisoned.

It seems reasonable to make such unscrupulous headlines. If the editor doesn’t make such headlines, there will be no body reading such news. First, it is suspected of producing fake news, because the headline is also a part of the news, and the headline is counterfactual, which is the violation of the key news elements, which is fake news. Second, even those readers who clicked on the title to read the content understood the facts, but they would definitely go back and curse this kind of title party. The contribution of this kind of headline party is not the reading rate, but it hurts the credibility of the media and poisons the quality of news.

Through the homework on Wikipedia, I also learned that science is not only constructed by scientific opinions, but more numerous experiments to verify its correctness. There is no exact definition for modern science (even if someone has defined it, but the recognition is certainly not high), science is a system composed of one or several special knowledge fields closely related to each other, but there are more features. My view on the question of "what is science" is close to Kuhn, that is, the scientific knowledge system is composed of various paradigms, and the paradigm contains a series of relatively fixed metaphysical basic tenets, research methods and procedures, and researchable Questions. The formation of the largest paradigm of "modern science" relies on a series of iconic events in history. In my opinion, the most iconic and directional meanings are as follows: 1. The ancient Greek Miletus school’s first inquiry into the “primitive” question; 2. From Pythagoras to later Plato. The mathematical model explains the world; 3, the logic developed by Aristotle and the theory of causality; 4, the experiment introduced by Galileo under ideal conditions (rather than daily and directly acceptable to the senses) ( Including thought experiments); 5, the professionalization trend of scientists after the second half of the 19th century. Of course, there are also a series of important events to fill and perfect the entire scientific framework, such as the development of mathematics such as geometry, algebra, and calculus, the two scientific revolutions, the rise of biology and other fields, and so on. What’s more As early as the early 12th century, cosmologist William tried to define science. He believed: "Science is a kind of knowledge." When science developed in the 18th century, German scientist Kant put forward the concept: "Science is organized knowledge. System." "Science, this is a system, which means that it is the sum of knowledge ordered according to certain known principles."