For example, in an incident in which a hawker was injured in a conflict with the urban management, one party thought that the urban management had rudely enforced the law and injured the hawker; The other side thinks that hawkers violently resist law enforcement, which leads to urban management law enforcement. If both sides are providing evidence to prove their views, it is an "argument".
Give another example of scientific communication. A popular science person wrote an article explaining "why the whole people in the United States vigorously supplement folic acid", and critics pointed out that there is no such thing as "the whole people vigorously supplement folic acid". The author of the article produced so-called authoritative materials, and critics pointed out that "compulsory supplement by the whole people" is a legal norm, while the author's so-called "authoritative organization" has no right to make laws and regulations. The FDA document, which has the right to make laws and regulations, stipulates that "fortified cereal products need folic acid supplementation"-as long as it is not declared as "fortified", folic acid does not need to be added, and "non-fortified" products are freely sold in the market, and there is no "forced supplementation".
Both the case of urban management and the case of popular science are normal "arguments" so far-even if the evidence produced by popular science authors is not convincing, they still hold the bottom line of "proving themselves with evidence". This argument helps the public to know the truth and should be affirmed and encouraged.
And "washing the ground" is another situation. The purpose of washing the floor is to "wash away" the criticism or opposition to the parties. In order to achieve this goal, we often deviate from controversial issues. Changing the theme is the core "technology" of "land washing talents"
For example, in urban management disputes, people who wash the land for urban management will talk about how important urban management work is to keep the city clean and tidy and maintain public health, how hard urban management work is, and how wronged urban management personnel are. Those who wash the land for hawkers often say that hawkers bring convenience to residents, the helplessness and kindness of the lower class, and the low quality of urban management personnel. People who wash the floor can write their own impassioned and self-explanatory articles, which often make readers feel that "everything is reasonable." However, no matter how reasonable these articles seem, they have little to do with who is right or wrong in the specific urban management dispute-such remarks are "washing the ground".
Take out the FDA document, there should be nothing to argue about the example of "strong folic acid supplementation"-the essence of the matter is that popular science people did not understand or understand the FDA document, thus misinterpreting a provision of "strong folic acid supplementation for the whole people" and then carrying out some "popular science". However, in order to prove that science popularization people are "not wrong", "floor washer" can still find beautiful mops. For example, some people collected and sorted out the market share of fortified cereals in the United States, claiming that "people will eat so many foods with folic acid added, so it can be said that all people will supplement them"-but they forgot that "forced supplementation" is a legal requirement, and market share is the result of consumers' free choice, which has nothing to do with it. If we follow the logic that "people who eat more are people who make up", it is time for China to make up for rice and steamed buns. Although this logic is ridiculous, when the reader sees the information collected by the land washer, he almost forgets what the land washer wants to prove and thinks that he is "right"-he has achieved the effect of washing the land.
"Motive conspiracy" is another common method of "washing the floor"-for many onlookers, "motive" is often more attractive than facts. For example, people who accuse "speaking for hawkers" are taking money to cause trouble, and those who accuse "speaking for urban management" are taking money to post. In the process of cleaning the ground for folic acid supplementation, critics were accused of "China still cares about what Americans eat when there are so many problems", "grasping others' mistakes with ulterior motives" and "criticizing this statement as opposing folic acid supplementation" and so on.
In addition, "senior land-washing talents" sometimes create new concepts or new logic, such as "(popular science writers say) compulsory addition of food, but not all". According to this logic, it can be said that "school-age children are required to go to school by law, but not all of them"-this is not "washing the floor", but tearing it down and reassembling it.
Introduction to Columnist-Yun: Master of Biochemistry in Tsinghua University, Ph.D. in Food Engineering in Purdue University, USA. Now he is engaged in research and development in the American food industry. Senior member of American Food Technology Association, member of Scientific Squirrel Society. He has published a personal collection of popular science works, The Truth of Eating (1-3) and Don't be afraid, Baby (a collection of four people). Previous column: