#586：专家权威的人为崩塌

欢迎收听Sigma营养电台。

And welcome to Sigma Nutrition Radio.

非常欢迎您收听本期节目。

You are very welcome to the show.

我是丹尼·列侬，这是本播客的第586期节目。

My name is Danny Lennon, and this is episode five eighty six of the podcast.

今天，您将听到一期我们称之为‘专家体系的制造性崩塌’的节目，它最初发布于相当久前，是我们为高级订阅用户提供的独家内容，原题为《领域专家之死》。

Today, you're going to listen to a episode that we'll call the manufactured collapse of expertise, but originally was published quite a while back as a premium exclusive episode for our premium subscribers that we titled The Death of Domain Expertise.

这实际上是对同名书籍《专家之死》（汤姆·尼科尔斯著）的呼应。

And this was really a callback to a book of a similar name, The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols.

事实证明，这期节目是我们最受欢迎的高级订阅内容之一，甚至可能是订阅用户反响最热烈的一期。

And this proved to be one of our most popular premium episodes, if not the most popular premium exclusive episode that our subscribers had access to.

因此今天我想为大家带来这期节目。

And so today I wanted to bring you that episode.

如果您收听了本播客第585期关于批判性思维的节目，您应该已经听到了今天这期节目的部分片段，大约几分钟的内容。

And indeed, you listen to episode 585 of the podcast on Thinking Critically, you would have heard a little bit of a segment, few minutes of the episode that you're going to hear today.

因此我们实际上是在讨论这样一个现象：尽管我们拥有大量关于营养与健康的信息渠道，但人们声称拥有专业知识或被视作特定领域专家的门槛却前所未有地低，即使他们并不具备我们认定的真正领域专长。

And so we're really talking about the fact that despite all the access we have to information around nutrition and health, there's never been such a low barrier for people claiming to have expertise or being seen as someone who has particular expertise, even if they don't actually have what we will determine to be true domain specific expertise.

这源于当前文化中多种因素共同作用导致的结果。

This comes from a whole host of factors that are going on within the culture right now that has led to this situation.

其中某些因素或许可以理解，但已使我们逐渐丧失辨别信息真伪的能力。

Some may be understandable, but has led us to the point where we are losing the ability to find what is good information and not.

这正是我与艾伦展开讨论的缘由，我认为这个话题至今仍具现实意义，甚至比过去更为重要。

This led to the discussion that Alan and I had, which I think is still relevant to this very day, in fact, more so.

讨论中涉及的许多问题至今仍是未解难题，我不确定我们社会是否已找到答案，甚至可能自本集节目首次在付费频道发布以来，情况反而更加恶化了。

And so many of the things discussed are ongoing issues that I'm not sure we as a society have been able to find answers to, and if anything, may have gotten worse in the intervening time between the first publication of this episode on our premium feed.

对于本播客的付费订阅用户，本次将首次获得完整的本集学习笔记。

Now for those of you who are premium subscribers of the podcast, this time around, you will have a set of full study notes to this episode, which have never previously been available.

您现在可以通过点击描述框中的链接获取这些笔记，从而更详细地深入了解相关概念。

You will now have those study notes that you can click through in the description box and go and access to go into more of these concepts in a bit more detail.

这些资料已为您备妥。

So they're available for you.

对于其他听众，如果您想获取更多像这样的高级专属节目（截至录音时我们已有近50期），我们每月还会新增一期高级专属内容。

For everyone else, if you want to get access to more premium exclusive episodes like this, of which now we have nearly 50 as of the time of recording right now, we have one new premium exclusive episode coming every month as well.

因此，如果您想获取这些内容，请考虑加入Sigma Nutrition高级会员。

And so if you wanna get access to those, then consider joining us on Sigma Nutrition Premium.

除了这些高级专属节目外，您还能获得所有常规播客的学习笔记、节目文字稿，并可以提问或建议话题——这些话题可能出现在常规节目中，也可能出现在专门的问答特辑里。

So in addition to these premium exclusive episodes, you also get study notes for all our regular podcast episodes as well as episode transcripts and access to ask us questions or suggest topics to be covered in podcast episodes themselves or in specific ask me anything episodes as well.

所有这些权益都面向Sigma Nutrition高级会员开放，这也是直接支持我们播客工作的最佳方式。

So all of that is available to our Sigma Nutrition premium subscribers, and that is the direct way to support the work we do here on the podcast.

我们完全依赖您——我们的忠实听众——的支持，因为我们不接受广告或任何外部资金赞助。

We rely entirely on you, our regular listeners, as we're not funded by ads or any outside influence like that.

在此感谢所有高级会员用户，希望我们的内容能持续为您带来价值。

And so thank you for anyone who is our premium subscriber, and we hope the content continues to be useful to you.

闲话少叙，现在让我们进入艾伦·弗拉纳根与我的对话，我们将共同探讨‘专业知识的人为崩塌’这一现象。

But without any further hesitation, let's dive into this conversation between Alan Flanagan and myself where we lament the manufactured collapse of expertise.

领域专业知识——我们曾在多期节目中提及——是个值得深思的议题：不仅它可能在某些人群中失宠，更诡异的是，竟有人认为领域专家反而更可能提供错误信息，这种观点初听实在令人费解。

Domain specific expertise, which is I think we've alluded to on a number of our episodes before, but is a really interesting topic to think about because not only has that maybe fallen out of favor with some people, in certain cases that is seen as a bad thing, which is weird for people maybe to first hear that some people are saying those with domain specific expertise in an area are actually more likely to give bad information.

或许可以试着论证这种说法并不成立。

Maybe try and make the case that that is not true.

但实际上这种现象源于网络上那些声音洪亮的非专业人士——准确说是那些在网上谈论营养学却可能毫无专业背景的人——他们的话语权似乎与领域专家同等重要，这确实令人费解。

But really this comes about because of the increased prevalence of very strong voices I wouldn't even say in the field of nutrition, people talking about nutrition online is probably more accurate who have maybe no real expertise in this area, but that doesn't seem to matter, and in the sense where their voice seems just as noteworthy as someone with expertise in a specific area.

这个问题存在多个层面，取决于我们讨论的深入程度，稍后我们肯定会详细探讨。

And there's a few different layers to this, depending on how granular we get, that we'll certainly get into.

不过在我展开讨论这个总体概念前——我知道这也是你经常感慨并深思过的问题——

But before I lead off into some of the things that I was hoping to talk about, with this general idea, I know this is something that you have lamented about yourself and have probably thought about quite a bit.

对你而言，这种被我们称为'专家之死'的现象是如何逐渐形成的？

What to you is this problem that has emerged over time of this death of expertise as we're going to refer to it as?

没错，这就是所谓的'专家之死'。

Yeah, that's it is a death of expertise.

这其实是汤姆·尼科尔斯那本书的书名，大概是2016年或更早出版的。

When indeed it's the title of Tom Nichols' book, was what, maybe 2016 or prior.

所以这个现象并非新近才被发现的观察结果。

So this is something that isn't necessarily a new observation.

或许是多种因素交织在一起，造就了我们所处的这种环境。

There are various perhaps strands that come together to create this environment that we have.

但本质上，我认为这可以归结为‘专家之死’这一概念下的几个关键因素。

But in essential in essence, I think it comes down to a couple of factors within this umbrella of the concept of the death of expertise.

其一是我们当前文化中几乎是在颂扬无知的现象。

One is that there's this almost celebration of ignorance that we have in the culture that we've created now.

这常常表现为一种刻意假设：拥有数十年领域经验的人反而不如那些所谓‘做过研究’的人受重视。

And that often translates to a deliberate assumption that someone who has decades of experience in a given field is to be discounted over someone that has, quote unquote, done their research.

尽管两者知识水平存在明显差距，但那些来自学术传统体系之外、自称提出见解的新手，却因其在该领域的无知而受到推崇。

And despite the palpable difference in their level of knowledge, the relative ignorance of that newcomer, the person who purports to be offering their thoughts from a place outside of the traditional structures of academia or otherwise, is basically being championed for their ignorance on that subject.

所以我认为这是其中一个方面。

So I think that's one aspect.

另一个因素可能是——其他人如乔纳森·海特或许从不同角度研究过——我们的教育体系培养出的学生，只是为了应付流程而存在。

I think the other is that we probably do, and there's other people that maybe have looked at this from a slightly different angle that we can think of Jonathan Haidt in particular, where I think more recently we have the product of an education system where people are just there for the sake of ticking a box.

没错。

Right.

人们不再为了学习过程而进入大学，并在毕业时获得更多知识。

People are no longer going to university to have this learning process and come out more learned on the other end.

他们去大学只是因为，嗯，如果想成为银行家或从事其他职业，就必须这么做。

They're going there because, well, they need to do this if they're going to be a banker or whatever career they're going to do.

这只是一个需要打勾的方框。

It's just a box to tick.

因此，教育不再真正关乎学习过程和随之而来的能力提升，而仅仅成为了一个目的本身。

So we have education as no longer something that's genuinely about the processes of learning and the improvement of the faculties that come with learning, but really just an end in and of itself.

然后我认为，当我们把这种情况与我们所创造的环境结合起来——通过大众传播工具使观点民主化，创造了一种'我有权持有观点'的氛围——人们就会顽固地坚持他们可能错得离谱的主张。

And then I think when we combine that with the climate that we have created, where we have through the mass communication tools that we have democratized opinion and we've created a situation where that sense of I'm entitled to an opinion means that people really hold steadfast in their entitlements to be as wrong as they possibly could be.

因此，观点的民主化也导致了这样一种局面：也许十五、二十年前，如果我们对事实有分歧，至少我们还能就事实本身达成一致。

So the democratization of opinion has also led to a scenario where maybe fifteen, twenty years ago, we could at least if we had a disagreement as to facts, we at least agreed what those facts were.

我们当时的分歧在于如何解释这些事实，以及这些事实和我们各自解释的含义。

What we were disagreeing about was how those facts were being interpreted and what the implication of those facts and our respective interpretations meant.

而现在，由于观点的民主化，我们基本上处于这样一种局面：每个人都觉得自己有权对任何问题选择他们喜欢的事实。

Whereas now, because of that democratization of opinion, we basically have a scenario where everyone feels they're entitled to whatever facts they like on a given question.

所以你们甚至都不在同一个竞技场上较量。

So you're just not even operating from the same playing field.

这一切交织在一起，特别是在营养和健康领域，形成了我们不幸面临的局面：某个自称'做过研究'的家伙，没有接受过任何正规培训或教育，缺乏批判性思维和科学素养的基本能力，却被奉为该领域的专家。这种人行事毫无诚意，你永远无法用事实、逻辑或证据与之辩论，因为他们会随时篡改事实，不断改变辩论的边界。

And it all coalesces together to create this scenario, particularly for nutrition and health generally, that we unfortunately have, where some dude who literally just did his own research, quote unquote, who has no formal training or education in the subject, who has no general education capacity as far as their critical thinking or scientific literacy, is being offered up as a domain specific expert in that area and is doing so in a way that's bad faith and that ultimately you can't ever navigate and defeat with facts, logic, evidence or otherwise because they'll simply constantly change the facts as it suits them and shift the goalposts of whatever argument's being made.

这确实是我们自己陷入的一个无解困境。

So it's really an intractable scenario we've backed ourselves into.

你提到的这些问题中有好几个我们稍后可能还需要再讨论。

There's quite a few issues that you brought up there that we'll probably circle back later on to.

我觉得你谈到的有趣观点之一是这种'我的意见和别人一样有效'的感觉。这种现象很大程度上源自互联网带来的那些经常被谈论的积极影响。

I think one of the interesting ones you discussed is this feeling of well my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's' And much of this comes from many of the positives that we are tend to get talked about in relation to the Internet.

对吧？

Right?

现在知识的守门人不再阻碍信息获取，任何人都能接触到这些，这确实很棒。

That now no longer the the gatekeepers of knowledge are are in the way that anyone can access this, which is true, and this is great.

或者说互联网实现了学习和知识的民主化，让每个人都能获取大量信息。

Or that Internet has allowed this democratisation of learning and of knowledge that anyone can access a lot of this information.

不过，这可能会让我们陷入一些陷阱，我们稍后肯定会再回到这个话题。

Again, but that can lead us into a few pitfalls which we'll certainly circle back to later on.

另一个问题是，专业知识和技能如果确实能在不同领域间迁移，它们是如何迁移的，以及这种迁移的界限在哪里。

And another one of the issues is how maybe expertise and skills, if they do transfer across different fields, how they do that and what are the limits to that.

但首先，我想先明确我们在讨论的领域专业知识究竟是什么，因为我认为重要的是要区分清楚，我们并非陷入一种单纯诉诸权威的误区——不是说只有拥有博士学位的人才能谈论营养学，没有的人就不行。

But first I wanted to start with maybe getting really clear on what we're talking about in relation to domain specific expertise because what I think is important to make a distinction here is that we're not falling into an appeal to credibility here of just saying, well, the people who can talk about this stuff are people with anyone with a PhD, and if you don't have that, don't talk about nutrition.

这并非我们界定专业知识的真正分界线。

That's not really the line that separates what we're going to refer to as expertise.

正如你所说，一方面，教育并不能保证专业能力。

Because on one side, as you noted, expertise isn't guaranteed by education.

你可以去获得学位，甚至是博士学位或医学博士学位，却未必能将科学思维或批判性思维应用于观点。

You can go and get a degree or even a doctoral degree or an MD and not necessarily apply scientific thinking or critical thinking to ideas.

但同样道理，专业能力不仅体现在对科学的普遍理解上，更体现在你要讨论的具体领域中。

But on the same token, there is something to having expertise not just generally about science, but in a very specific domain that you're gonna talk about.

当领域越细分时，你的专业深度就越难被来自其他领域的人所匹敌。

And the narrow that goes, you probably have just an amount of expertise that can't be matched by someone coming from an alternative field.

基于以上内容，我们该如何精确定义领域专长，并将其与单纯诉诸权威的谬误区分开来？

So based on all that, what is the best way to summarise specifically what we mean by domain specific expertise and how that differs from just a fallacy of appealing to credibility.

我认为领域专长包含两个要素，它们会根据讨论领域的不同而呈现略微差异化的形态，或者说在不同领域中具有不同的语境。

Yeah, would think that there are two elements to domain specific expertise that will slightly take different shapes relative to the field being discussed, or they'll have different contexts relative to the field being discussed.

领域专长的第一个层面就是对该特定领域知识的掌握深度。

So that the first aspect to domain specific expertise is simply a depth of knowledge of that specific area.

这里所说的知识，仅指对该领域现有事实的理解。

Then knowledge here is simply just an understanding of the facts as they stand in that area.

以专攻欧洲近代早期史的历史学家为例，他们的知识深度体现在能熟记该时期的战役和日期，而不必在授课时对每场战役的细节都事无巨细地讲解。

So if we're talking about a historian specializing in early modern history, European history, for example, the depth of their knowledge will go to they will know battles from that period and dates without necessarily having to go into every detail with, say, a class that they're lecturing to on the intricacies of every individual battle.

但他们对该领域事件的知识储备既有深度又有广度。

But they will have this level of depth and breadth of knowledge of the of the occurrences in that specific area.

在营养学领域，专家则需掌握基础事实性知识的深度。

And in a nutrition context, someone will have depths of just basic factual knowledge.

他们理解微量营养素和宏量营养素及其在体内的作用，通晓代谢过程，全面掌握现有证据基础及其成因，明白为何某些证据比其他证据更具说服力。

They'll understand micronutrients, macronutrients, their roles in the body, they'll understand processes, they'll have broad understandings of what we have as far as the current evidence base and why that evidence base exists, why it's supported by certain more persuasive bodies of evidence than others.

因此他们将拥有该领域实际知识的深度，即特定领域的知识体系。

So they'll have this depth of actual the actual knowledge, the body of knowledge specific to that area.

其次，他们还将在该领域具备分析专长。

And then the second part of this will be they'll also have analytic expertise in that area.

回到历史学家的例子，这位历史学家使用的分析工具显然与科学家截然不同。

So to go back to our historian example, the analytic tools that that historian will use will obviously be very different to a scientist.

历史学家不会在实验室进行胰岛素检测或开展多元回归分析，但他们擅长验证文献、档案研究、审查原始资料的方法，通过交叉比对资料，最终得出经严格验证的、关于所研究时期的准确表述——这里的证据可能包括文献证据、实际记录、同期著作、目击者证词等。

That historian is not going to be running insulin assays in a lab or conducting a multivariate regression, but they are going to be experts at verifying documentation, archival research, how to vet primary sources, to check those sources against each other, and to ultimately come away with an accurate representation of the period they study that has been rigorously verified against the available evidence and evidence in this context obviously maybe being documentary evidence or actual records or works written contemporarily at the time, eyewitness accounts, etc.

因此他们具备这种分析专长，能够在该领域做出知识贡献，这是科学家即便去历史学家大学待上一天也无法获得的。

And so that they've got this analytic expertise to be able to come away with a contribution to knowledge in that work that a scientist wouldn't have if they went into that historian's university and hung around with them for a day.

但同样地，科学家将在科学素养方面具备分析专长。

But similarly, the scientist is going to have analytic expertise in terms of scientific literacy.

他们将理解不同方法论设计的研究论文的优势与局限性。

They'll understand the strengths and limitations of papers that are of different methodological designs in terms of the study.

例如，他们能够批判性地理解随机对照试验与前瞻性队列研究各自的优势与局限。

They'll be able to critique and understand the strengths and limitations of a randomised controlled trial versus a prospective cohort study, for example.

他们将掌握统计模型的理解，从而能够判断这项分析在相关方面是否采取了正确的方法。

They'll have understanding of statistical models so that they'll be able to actually see did this analysis even do the right thing in that regard.

因此，我们需要具备领域专长的这两个主要方面。

So there's these two broad aspects that we have to domain specific expertise.

一方面是领域特定的知识内容，即实际知识及其深度；另一方面则是分析能力。

We have the content specific knowledge, the actual knowledge, depth of knowledge, and then we have the analytical ability.

二者结合便构成了个人的领域专长，其差异仅在于应用场景的不同。

And both of them combine to give someone domain specific expertise, and it's simply the context of its application.

我以历史学家和科学家为例说明这种差异——

And the two examples I use being a historian and a scientist that would differ.

这不仅仅是宣称'我是历史学教授'或'我是营养学教授'就要求他人'必须相信我说的话'，因为信任依据本身是需要单独讨论的问题，这正涉及领域专长的核心。

And that's not just saying, I'm a professor in history' or I'm a professor of nutrition', you need to believe what I say', because why you would believe what they say is a separate question that we can discuss to domain specific expertise.

这就是我对领域专长的定义：深厚的知识储备与该领域特有的精炼分析技能的结合。

But that's how I would classify domain specific expertise, the depth of knowledge combined with refined analytical skills specific to that area.

确实很有帮助，因为我们接下来要讨论的正是人们如何跨领域工作或贡献，以及关于跨领域专长的一些理念。

Yeah, and that's really useful because one of the things we're going to talk about is how maybe people can move across different fields or at least contribute to different fields and some of these ideas around cross domain expertise.

但如果我们继续探讨领域专长这个概念，之前播客中讨论过的一个例子很好地说明了你刚提到的这两个问题或两种视角如何实际重叠。

But if we're keeping with this idea of domain specific expertise, one of the things that we've talked about on this podcast before gives a really good example of how those two issues you just brought up or the two ways of looking at it can actually overlap.

如果我们思考阅读研究或健康科学领域的专业细微差别，一个常见的说法是：有人开始在线上谈论营养学或写相关书籍，但他们并非营养学背景出身。

So if we think about the nuance in expertise of reading research or health science, one of the common narratives I think sometimes that people may come across is someone has started to talk about nutrition online or write a book about it, and they're coming from outside of nutrition.

但他们可以说：

But they can say, look.

我在某个科学学科有背景。

I have a background in a certain scientific discipline.

可能是物理学、工程学，甚至是医学。

Maybe that could be physics, that could be engineering, that could be even medicine.

我运用这些技能——因为我知道如何阅读研究，借此尝试解读其他领域的营养学内容，通过阅读得出了这些结论。

And I've used those skills to be able to because I know how to read research, and using that, I've been able to try and interpret some of this nutrition stuff that's in a different field, but I've read through that, and that's allowed me to come to these conclusions.

但正如我们指出的，虽然确实具备这种能力，这也是个良好起点，但某些情况下仍可能存在不足，除非人们深入接触过该领域专家的特定思路。

But as we've pointed to, whilst there is some capacity to do that, and certainly it's a good starting point, there can be certain cases where there can be some shortcomings unless people have exposed themselves to ideas of people who have gone in very specific ways.

你多次提到的一个例子是：如果我们具体考虑营养流行病学领域，该领域真正专家在恰当解读文献时的认知角度，可能与那些虽具备科研阅读能力但纯生物医学背景的人有所不同。

So as one example that you have brought up a number of times is if we think about nutrition epidemiology specifically, and we think of the real domain experts in that area, and the things they are aware of in terms of interpreting some of that literature appropriately might be different from someone who, again, has expertise in reading scientific research, but comes from a background purely in biomedicine.

或者更极端地说，他们是物理学家，所以能读懂研究论文。

Or even further afield, they're a physicist, so they can read research.

他们能阅读科研文献，具备这种能力，但可能不了解特定领域（比如营养流行病学）的一些细微差别。

They can read scientific research, they know how to do that, but is unaware of maybe some of the nuances of a specific field in this example, nutritional epidemiology.

也许可以为没听过你讨论这个观点的人，用这个例子来说明在‘读懂研究’或成为健康科学专家时存在的专业细微差别？

So maybe just for anyone who hasn't heard you kind of talk about that idea, could you maybe use that as an example to discuss where there is this nuance of expertise in being able to 'read research' or to be a health science expert, so to speak?

是的，这一点在针对营养科学的批评中尤为重要。

Yeah, and this is something that is really important when it comes to some of the criticisms leveled against nutrition science in particular.

一个人可以具备广泛的科学素养，对吧？

So, someone can have broad scientific literacy, right?

他们在方法论层面能很好地理解研究的优势和局限。

And there they have good understanding of, in a methodological sense, strengths and limitations.

他们能根据研究特征评估其优势和局限性。

They could appraise a study for its characteristics in terms of its strengths and limitations.

但如果缺乏这方面的能力——这就是素养部分，他们本应具备的分析性专业技能。

But if they didn't have and so that would be the literacy part, skill based analytic expertise that they would have.

但如果他们缺乏该领域的知识专长和深度理解，仍可能得出至少具有误导性的结论，这些结论或许并不准确，或者可能对某些研究发现表现出过度热情或不够重视——正是由于缺乏特定领域的专业知识，尽管他们的分析能力使他们能够判断某项试验比另一项更可靠，比如因为是双盲安慰剂对照研究。

But if they didn't have the knowledge, expertise, the depth of knowledge of that area, they could still actually come to at least misleading conclusions that perhaps are not necessarily accurate, or they can perhaps be overenthusiastic or under enthusiastic about certain findings in this area that they're not too familiar with because they're lacking again that domain specific knowledge aspect, even though their analytic skills are allowing them to say, well, this trial was a more robust study than this trial because it was double blind and placebo controlled.

在这个评估上他们并没有错。

Okay, they wouldn't be wrong in that assessment.

举个具体例子来说明这个抽象概念，我能想到的是约翰·尤尼塔斯教授对营养学作为研究领域的整体批评。

But one example, just to bring this out of the abstract to life for people that I can think of, would be Professor John Unitas criticisms of nutrition generally as a field of inquiry.

但他喜欢强调的例子——即为何我们不能依赖营养流行病学——很大程度上是基于从生物医学角度进行的宽泛且非特定的通用技能分析。

But what he likes to highlight as an example of, well, this is why we cannot rely on nutritional epidemiology, is very much based on a broad and unspecific general skills based analysis from a biomedical perspective.

具体来说，他列举了许多流行病学研究发现某些关联的例子（比如维生素E或其他营养素），同时能找到随机对照试验显示这些与流行病学观察到的结果并无显著关联。

So what I mean by that is he uses a number of examples of epidemiological studies that have found certain associations, for example for vitamin E or other nutrients, and he's able to find randomised controlled trials that found no significant association with the outcome observed in epidemiology, I.

即

E.

这些试验完全没发现任何关联。

They just showed up nothing, null.

有些研究针对心血管疾病，有些则针对其他健康结果。

Some of it's for cardiovascular disease, some of it's for other outcomes.

在他的分析框架中，他指向证据等级体系并指出，随机对照试验在方法论上优于前瞻性队列研究。

And in his analytic framework, he's pointing to the hierarchy of evidence and he's saying, well, randomised controlled trial is methodologically superior to a prospective cohort study.

而这个随机对照试验的结果与流行病学研究发现相矛盾。

And this randomised controlled trial contradicted the findings in epidemiology.

因此，随机对照试验是更值得信赖的发现。

Therefore, the randomised controlled trial is a more trustworthy finding.

这是'真实发现'，言下之意这又是个'不能相信营养流行病学'的例证。

It's the 'true finding' and by implication, it's another example of why we can't 'trust nutritional epidemiology'.

但这个论点让他败下阵来的，恰恰是该领域专业知识中最基础层面的认知问题——因为他并非营养科学家。

But where that defeats him then is just at the very simple level of knowledge based expertise in this area, because he's not a nutrition scientist.

一个显而易见的例子是：他所引用的流行病学研究关注的是膳食摄入量，识别的是饮食中摄取的营养素。

And one immediately obvious example is that the epidemiology that he's referring to is looking at dietary intake and identifying nutrients consumed in the diet.

而他引用的随机对照试验使用的却是营养素的孤立补充剂形式。

And the RCTs he's referring to were using isolated supplement forms of the nutrients.

在流行病学研究中，比较的是摄入量极低人群与高摄入人群的数据。

In the epidemiology, you were comparing people with very low levels of intake to people with high levels of intake.

在随机对照试验中，所有受试者的摄入量原本就处于相对较高水平。

In the randomised controlled trials, you've got everyone already with relatively high levels of intake.

不存在低摄入组。

There is no low intake group.

因为营养素遵循钟形曲线分布，不像药物那样可以与零暴露的安慰剂对照，这是我们之前讨论过的。点。

So, because nutrients exist on a bell curve and are not a drug that you're comparing to a zero exposure placebo, this is what we've discussed before.

虽然他指出随机对照试验在方法学上优于流行病学研究或前瞻性队列研究并无不当之处，这种基于技能的分析本身并无不妥。

While it's not incorrect for him to state that there are methodological advantages to a randomised control trial over an epidemiological study or prospective cohort study, that skill based analysis is not necessarily incorrect.

专业领域知识的缺乏，实际上削弱了他批判的力度。

The lack of knowledge, domain specific knowledge, is actually making his critiques weakened by that absence of that knowledge.

因此这种批判未必站得住脚，因为你没有进行同类比较。

And there are reasons then why that critique really doesn't necessarily hold up, because you're not comparing apples and apples.

这个例子表明，他的整个批判都基于一个假设：任何具备科学素养和健康科学背景的人都可以采用这种宽泛的方法论分析框架。

So it's an example of where his entire critique is based on an assumption that the broad methodological analytic approach that anyone with scientific literacy and health sciences could take.

这是我的证据等级体系。

Here's my hierarchy of evidence.

这项研究优于那项研究实际上适用于独立于特定领域知识的情况。

Here's this study is better than that study actually applies independent of domain specific knowledge.

在此背景下，相关知识极为重要，因为它有助于将分析知识置于具体情境中。

And in this context, the knowledge here is hugely important because it helps contextualise your analytical knowledge.

两者之间的脱节意味着我们最终会得出误导性结论，进而对该领域提出不公正的批评。

And the disconnect between the two means we ultimately come to misleading conclusions and then unjust criticisms then levelled at the field.

这是个非常有用的开场案例，因为这可能是最高层次的案例之一——某位发表研究论文的作者虽然对所谈内容有相当程度的理解，却仍遗漏了这一关键细微差别。

That's a really useful example to start with, because that's probably one of the highest points where you can actually have someone who's publishing research who understands quite a fair bit about what they're talking about, is missing this critical piece of nuance.

而接下来要讨论的其他案例可能更为恶劣，有些人甚至完全超出了这个理解层次在发表观点。

Whereas maybe some other examples we get to now are probably much more egregious of people talking even way beyond that level of understanding.

为了预先应对后续可能的反驳，我们或许应该更系统地梳理一些典型反对意见。但人们初次听到这个观点时可能会问：难道这不意味着其他人也可以通过阅读相关研究来学习特定领域知识吗？即便他们并未接受过营养学专业训练？

To head off some of the counterpoints later on we'll more formally maybe walk through some of the typical counter arguments But one that maybe people first have when they hear this is saying, well surely does this not mean that others can go and read some of this research and learn more about this certain field even if they're not actually trained in nutrition?

当然，答案是肯定的。

And, of course, the answer is yes.

他们确实可以这样做。

They can do that.

但我们需要意识到你已指出的几点，即我们定义的学科专业知识不仅仅是时间和精力的问题，因为有时人们会将其简化为这一点。

But we need to be aware of a few of the things that you've outlined already of that expertise as we've defined it in a subject matter is not just this matter of time and effort because I think sometimes it gets reduced to that.

哦，你是说某人需要花费一定时间和精力去攻读博士学位或在该领域做研究。

Oh, you're saying someone needs to spend a certain amount of time and effort getting a PhD or doing research in this area.

不仅仅是那样，甚至也不仅止于此。

It's not just that or even that alone.

你可能拥有与之不同的东西。

You could have something separate from that.

真正关键的是你多次提到的技能习得——首先是恰当解读证据的能力，这涉及到该领域的具体特性。

It's really about the skill acquisition that you've pointed to a couple of times of this skill acquisition in interpreting evidence appropriately, number one, which speaks to the specifics of that field.

其次是内容知识，意味着当你解读完某项具体研究后，能将其置于整个证据体系的恰当背景中。

But second, the content knowledge means once you've interpreted that, say, individual study you're looking at, you can now place that in the appropriate context of the rest of the evidence base.

因此如果你没有足够的时间或接触过这些，你就无法做到这一点。

And so if you haven't had the time or exposure to that, you're just not gonna be able to do that.

而关于时间和精力的概念，存在一种误解认为这就足够了——但希望现在应该清楚事实并非如此，对吧？

And with that idea of time and effort, is some misconception that that is sufficient, which hopefully it should be clear isn't, right?

如果有人刚开始阅读营养学研究，首先，他们不可能拥有那些长期从事该领域研究的人所具备的洞察力。

If someone is just starting reading nutrition research, first of all, they can't have the insights of someone who spent a lot longer time doing it.

但有很多例子表明，有些人即使声称'我已经研究这个领域多年了'，却仍在传播错误信息。

But there's multiple examples of people who put out bad information even though they claim, well, I've been looking at this for years.

对吧？

Right?

这种典型说辞。

That classic narrative.

而这些人还自诩为专家。

And you people self label themselves as experts.

确实，我想到一个例子就是...

As indeed, one example that comes to mind is Yeah.

我告诉过你，艾弗·卡明斯曾在推特上对我说他是脂质专家，这本身就够离谱的——想想看，大多数治疗心血管疾病的医生都不敢自称是脂质学专家。

I've told you, Ivor Cummins telling me on Twitter before that he was a lipid expert which in itself is wild once you start thinking that most medical doctors, even that treat people with cardiovascular disease, wouldn't say they're an expert in lipidology.

那是个非常具体的专业领域，但他却用工程师的视角来看待这个问题，声称自己发现了真相，而其他那些在他看来都算不上专家。

That's a very specific field, but yet applying his engineering perspective to this issue, he has uncovered the truth that these others he would not deem as experts.

言归正传，这种情况确实可能发生——当有人来自不同领域，学习特定知识后会产生独到见解。

So to get back to the point, of course, this can happen where someone comes from a different field, learns certain things, and has interesting insights.

这就是跨领域专业知识的价值所在，或者说不同学科间的横向思维。

And this is where this idea of cross domain expertise comes in or lateral thinking across fields.

但接下来我们要讨论的案例中，这种情况并未得到提倡。

But this is not something that gets promoted in the cases we're gonna get to.

对吧？

Right?

我们要说的不是那种完全不懂营养学的外行，自学后发现某些不为人知的真相，现在要公之于众的人。

So this is not someone that is completely from outside of nutrition, starts reading themselves, uncovers some sort of unknown truth, and now is gonna expose it to the world.

是的。

Yes.

真正的跨领域专业知识常见于学术机构中，当流行病学、统计学、生物学等不同部门开展多学科合作时产生的成果。

What cross domain expertise is actually what you get in a lot of academic institutions when you have multidisciplinary work of people in different departments, whether that's epidemiology, working with statisticians, working with biologists and so on.

而不是某个曾经的精神科医生，现在却自诩通晓人类营养学全部知识的情况。

Not this random person who is an ex psychiatrist and now has determined everything about human nutrition.

所以我认为当人们谈论跨领域专长时，这里存在一个明显的区别，这实际上并不与我们之前所说的观点相矛盾。

So I think there's a clear difference there when people talk about cross domain expertise and that's not actually a counterpoint to what we've said so far.

确实，而且这种情况也很罕见。

No, and it's also a rarity.

我的博士学位在某种程度上是跨学科的，因为我研究的是时间生物学方面，而营养学则是在时间生物学背景下进行的。

I mean, my PhD was to an extent cross because I had the chronobiology aspect and it was nutrition that I was looking at, obviously, in a chrono context.

因此，实际上我认为对我来说，这是一个很好的经历——我在时间生物学部门度过了大量时间，可能比在营养学部门还要多。

And so I actually think for me, this is quite a good I spent a lot of time in the chronobiology department, possibly more so than nutrition.

我认为这是一个适用的例子，跨领域背景可能会影响你，仅仅因为你身处某个领域，而该领域的疾病与其他领域有所重叠。

I think this is an example of where this applies, cross domain context that you might be exposed to simply because you're in an area and it's then disease overlaps with other areas.

这在营养学领域非常常见。

And this is really common with nutrition.

你会看到有些人从精神病学或心理学背景转入营养研究，因为他们对食物对大脑、情绪和行为的影响感兴趣。

You'll have people that come into nutrition research from maybe a psychiatry or a psychology background because they're interested in the effect of food on the brain and mood and behaviour.

营养学作为一个领域确实能从中受益，而且随着时间推移，我相信跨学科和多学科的营养研究将真正惠及整个领域这一观点正变得越来越被接受。

And nutrition can really benefit as a field and hopefully as we go on I think it's becoming more accepted that cross and multidisciplinary nutrition research will really benefit the field overall.

但我们自身存在局限，对我来说这个局限就是，比如我对时间生物学非常感兴趣。

But there's a limit to us and that limit to it for me, for example, like I really am interested in the chronobiology.

我认为这是个迷人的学科。

I think it's a fascinating subject.

但在博士阶段。

But at the level of a of a Ph.

我对这个领域的了解存在很大局限。

D, there were great limits on what I was going to know in that area.

所以对于通才、街头交谈的路人，或是从未听说过时间生物学的学者来说，如果我向他们解释转录反馈环路如何产生昼夜节律这类知识，我会显得知识渊博。

So to a generalist or to someone in the street that I'm having a conversation with or to another academic who's never ever heard of chronobiology, I would sound like someone with a lot of knowledge if I was explaining to them the transcriptional feedback loop that results in the generation of circadian rhythms and all that kind of stuff.

但我自己心里清楚。

But I just know that.

虽然我对体内产生昼夜节律的过程有细致了解，但若与时间生物学家交谈，我的知识水平相对于他们几乎就是新手。

The intricacy of my knowledge of these processes that generate circadian rhythms in the body would have this limit that if I was talking to a chronobiologist, I essentially am almost novice relative to their knowledge.

所以我认为人们需要意识到这一点——就像我们讨论安德鲁·休伯曼这类人物时（我相信我们会的），因为如果有人在我的Instagram快拍里问基础问题，比如'什么是昼夜节律？'，我确实能解释清楚。

So it's really important that I think people just are mindful of that if we're talking, which I'm sure we will, about someone like an Andrew Huberman, because I could explain if someone asked me a basic question on an Instagram story, like what are circadian rhythms?

我可以给出这个答案。

I could provide that answer.

我还能更详细地解释它们是如何在体内产生的以及相关机制。

I could go into more detail in terms of why they're how they're generated in the body and all that kind of stuff.

但仅此而已。

But that's it.

我无法深入探讨，因为这不是我的专业领域，尽管我的博士学位与这个领域有所交叉。

I can't go further than that because that's not my expertise, even though my PhD cross context with this other field.

我的专业是营养学。

My expertise is nutrition.

我认为这是学术界大多数人都会非常清楚的一点。

And I think that that is something that most people within academia would be very conscious of.

你的主要研究领域是什么？你在哪些领域有所涉猎？

What's your main what's your primary area and what areas do you have bits of knowledge on?

或者因为你的研究，你在哪些方面比普通人或非该领域的学者懂得更多？

Or have you touched on because of your research that you have more knowledge than the average person, more knowledge than another academic that's not in that area?

但与该领域的专业人士相比，你在那个领域只是个新手。

But you're a novice in that field compared to the people that are actually in that area.

我认为这正是Huberman在营养学领域的契合点。

That's where Huberman really fits in with the nutrition stuff, I think.

是的，我认为还有更离谱的例子，特别是关于LDL的讨论——我们在播客中花了大量时间讨论这个话题，但这个例子非常典型，因为有些人可能连心血管或营养学背景都没有，就开始谈论饱和脂肪、LDL、动脉粥样硬化，并声称现有知识体系是错误的。

Yeah, I think there's even more egregious examples which we'll get to, particularly in relation to LDL, which we've spent so much time talking about in the podcast, but this is a really useful example because with something like that people come from, let's say, outside of even a cardiovascular background or even a nutrition background, and then we'll start talking about things like saturated fat, LDL, atherosclerosis, and start saying about how the established knowledge is incorrect.

对吧？

Right?

而目前所有的专家并非全都搞错了。

And all experts that are currently there haven't just got it all wrong.

对吧？

Right?

这其实并不是跨领域专业能力讨论中真正被提倡的方式。

And that's not really what is being talked about in relation to cross domain expertise in the way that gets promoted.

对吧？

Right?

人们可能读过戴维·爱泼斯坦的《范围》这本书，它算是一本科普读物。

So people may have came across the book Range by David Epstein, which was kind of a popular science book.

但书中讨论了许多文献，讲述了来自其他领域的人如何通过不同视角或自身背景知识帮助解决另一个领域的问题，这非常棒。

But that talked about a lot of the literature that has spoken to people from outside certain domains being able to help solve a problem in another domain because they were able to look at it in a different way or use knowledge that they had in their background, which is fantastic.

但这与我们讨论的低密度脂蛋白（LDL）案例中的某些情况完全不同。

That is not what's going on in some of the examples that we've been talking about with LDL.

对吧？

Right?

他描述的是当某个领域存在未知难题时，来自其他领域的人提出解决方案的情形。

What he's talking about there is where there's an unknown that there's we don't really know how to solve a certain issue, and then someone comes in and makes a certain suggestion about how that could work.

他们来自不同领域，我们通过测试发现——哇，这确实帮我们解决了问题。

And they're coming from a different field, And then we go and test that and, oh, this actually helped us solve this problem.

这才是真正有价值的。

That's really useful.

这才是跨领域专业知识和跨领域工作真正发挥效用的典范。

That's cross domain expertise and cross domain work really working usefully.

在LDL或纯肉饮食这类案例中发生的情况是，有人跳出来宣称所有既定理论都是错误的。

What's happening here with something like the LDL story or carnivore stuff is someone coming in and saying all this established stuff is wrong.

这个替代假设才是正确的。

This alternative hypothesis is actually correct.

但他们并不在意这些理论其实早已被验证过。

But what they're not doing is they don't care about that this has actually already been tested.

对吧？

Right?

这并不是什么阴谋论——

That you this is not some sort of cover up that Yeah.

学术界人士并没有试图掩盖真相或压制他们的声音。

People established in academia are trying to hide this away or prevent them speaking.

他们可以表达观点，也确实表达过，但这些观点早已被研究过，结果证明只是个站不住脚的假设。

They can voice that, and it has been voiced, but it's already been looked at and just found to be a not a very good hypothesis.

没错。

Yeah.

而且它实际上经不起推敲。

And it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

所以并不存在什么阴谋。

So there's no conspiracy out there.

我认为这是一个需要澄清的重要观点，因为跨领域专业知识确实存在，其他领域的横向思维也很重要，但这与营养科学领域正在发生的情况——尤其是在互联网和社交媒体上，以及那些聚集了大量粉丝的人中间——截然不同，在那里专业知识如今反而被视为坏事。

And I think that's just an important point to to clarify because indeed cross domain expertise is a thing and lateral thinking from other fields, but that's not the same thing as what's happening in nutrition science, certainly on the internet and social media and the people who are gathering these huge audiences where expertise is deemed as a bad thing now.

对，确实如此。

Right, exactly.

跨领域专业知识通常是在研究背景下获得的。

That cross domain expertise is generally acquired within a research context.

这些人并没有对他们自诩为专家的领域做出过实际贡献。

These aren't people who have contributed to the fields that they're purporting to hold themselves out as experts on.

他们只是来自不同背景的人——无论是拥有精神病学学位的萨拉迪诺，还是记者马克斯·卢卡瓦雷斯，或者颇具讽刺意味的是，两位工程师艾弗·卡明斯和戴夫·费尔德曼。

They're just someone from a different background, whether they're Saladino with his psychiatry degree or Max Lucavares, a journalist or Ivor Cummins and Dave Feldman, ironically, are both engineers.

他们以为这种背景能让他们看到所谓的‘真相’，并自认为拥有该领域的专业知识，但实际上他们从未真正涉足过那个领域。

And they're assuming that background gives them some way of seeing the quote unquote truth, and they're assuming expertise in that area, but they've never actually been in that area.

所以他们既不具备分析能力，也缺乏基于知识的专业技能。

So they don't have those analytic skills and they don't have the knowledge based skills.

即便他们通过自学获取了一些知识，也缺乏将知识置于情境中的分析能力。

And even if they do acquire some knowledge along the way just through their own reading, they don't have the analytic skills to contextualize that knowledge.

我认为这是一个非常重要的区别。

And I think that's a really important distinction.

这基本上就是我刚开始攻读硕士学位时的状态。

And that's basically where I was at the start of my MSc.

我虽然通过所谓的'自学'了解了不少营养学知识，但完全没有科学素养。

I had done a lot of self learning quote unquote about nutrition, but I had no scientific literacy.

我这辈子从没接触过科学。

I'd never done science in my life.

所以我无法将那些知识转化为有意义的认知框架。

So I had no ability to take that knowledge and turn it into context.

这就是所有这些人的共同特点。

And that's basically what you have with all of these people.

他们之间贯穿的共同主题，无论讨论什么话题，都是在毫无背景分析和缺乏批判性思维的情况下空谈一切。

They're unifying theme running between them all, whatever it is they're talking about, is that they're sprouting all this stuff totally devoid of context and totally devoid of analytic skill.

而且，正如你所说，这总是与主流观点背道而驰。

And, yeah, like you said, it's always antithesis to the status quo.

至少网上某些红人的言论，更多是基于娱乐和新闻性质而非专业内容，这可能造成严重问题。

Some of it, at least from some of the popular people online, that is more based around entertainment and journalism than anything else, that can be a real issue.

或许我们可以以此为例展开讨论，因为我们曾在研究场景中具体探讨过这个问题的细微差别。

And so maybe let's talk about that as one example because we've talked about this in the specifics of the nuances of this in a research setting.

但当我们谈论网络信息时，至少从消费者角度看，现在存在一个严重问题：人们对健康资讯表现出极大兴趣。

But then when we talk about online information, at least from a consumer point of view now, there's this real problem of people being really interested in health information.

这可能会造成一种他们在学习的错觉。

And there can be this illusion that they are learning.

因为很多人——包括我们播客的听众和我们自己——都热爱学习，尤其是关于科学和营养学这类知识。

And because a lot of people, I think many people that listen to our podcasters and our podcast, and certainly we are the same, love learning things and particularly about science and things like nutrition.

还有很多人虽然没受过营养学专业训练，但希望更广泛地了解这些健康科学知识。

And there are many people broadly that maybe don't aren't trained in nutrition but want to learn more about this stuff and health science more broadly.

然后他们可能会遇到像你提到的一些播客，比如安德鲁·胡珀曼谈论营养的播客，马克斯·卢戈瓦里的播客，汤姆·比利厄的播客等等，这些拥有庞大听众群的节目在讨论健康科学，这会给你一种在学习的感觉，因为内容易懂、引人入胜，而且主持人都有专业资质，听起来很有道理。

And then they come across maybe a podcast like some of the ones you mentioned, an Andrew Hooperman podcast where he's talking about nutrition, a Max Lugovari podcast, a Tom Billieux podcast, whatever it is, that are have huge audiences that are talking about health science, and it can give you this illusion that you are learning because the content is understandable, it's engaging, and there are people with credentials, and it seems to make sense.

正因如此，加上娱乐因素，人们就会持续关注这些内容。

So and because there's this entertainment factor to it, it allows people to continue sticking with it.

我认为这正是我所看到的'感知专业性的消亡'，因为现在讨论特定话题时，是否真正具备专业知识已经不重要了。

And I think that is what I see as this this death of perceived expertise because now it doesn't matter that there is no necessarily expertise in specific topics that are being talked about.

只要听起来足够权威、足够吸引人，并且拥有足够多的听众，就足以让更多人在'我正在学习这个主题'的幌子下消费这些内容。

As long as it sounds authoritative enough and is engaging enough and someone has a big enough audience, that is almost enough for it to be consumed by more people under the guise of I'm learning more about this topic.

对。

Right.

这里有几个因素共同作用，我认为扭曲了知识的定义。

This is where there's a couple of things that are conspiring, I think, mislead what counts as knowledge.

一是你提到的观点，人们像调查记者那样接触这些内容。

One is that you made the point of approaching people are approaching stuff as if they're kind of investigative journalists.

对吧？

Right?

即便是在优秀的调查新闻报道中，记者们最终也只是陈述事实和描述事件经过。

And so you don't ever even with good investigative journalism, they're almost at the end of the day going to be just presenting facts and describing what happened.

这在调查新闻的语境下是有用的，但它依然无法为你提供整合这些信息所需的领域专业知识背景。

And that's useful in an investigative journalistic context, but it's not giving you, again, that additional context domain specific expertise to piece it all together.

我认为关键在于区分‘阅读并认为某人理解某事’与‘批判性分析’之间的差异。

And then I think so the difference is there's a difference between reading and thinking that someone understands something versus critiquing.

你可以捧着一本关于二十世纪东欧历史的大部头阅读，读完后脑子里记住几个零碎知识点。

You can sit there for you could sit there with a big book on the history of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, and you can read it and come away and have a few tidbits in the head.

但将阅读行为误认为是对该时期事件达到理解层面的分析，这种认知是错误的。

But to confuse the reading of that particular text with actually analyzing the events in that period to a level of understanding is a mistake.

这两者根本不是一回事。

They're not the same thing.

科学素养的培养也存在同样问题。

And it's the same with scientific literacy.

这种混淆表现为‘我读过这篇论文’的错觉。

It's this confusion of, well, I read this paper.

如果在一般语境下，比如，我们或许能知道，如果某人读的不只是摘要，可能还包括讨论部分。

And if it's in the general context, like, look, we probably could know that if it wasn't just the abstract someone read, it might be the discussion.

但缺乏我们之前谈到的专业领域知识，他们显然没有仔细审查研究方法。

But absent the expertise domains that we were talking about, they certainly haven't scrutinised the methods.

他们肯定也没有仔细审查分析过程。

They certainly haven't scrutinised the analysis.

更不用说去审查他们从所采用的研究方法和分析形式中得出的结果是否站得住脚，从而让我们能断言这是一项好研究。

And they certainly haven't scrutinised then whether the outcomes that they've derived from the methods and form of analysis that they've used all stack up such that we can say that this is a good study.

所以本质上，我们面临的是大量读过某些内容的人，他们误以为自己的阅读等同于理解和知识。

So basically, what we have is a proliferation of people who have read things and have an illusion that their reading of whatever that is translates to understanding and knowledge.

比如有人读到戴夫·费尔德曼关于LDL胆固醇的文章，读完后自以为对该话题有了理解，实际上他们只是记住了一些观点，而这些观点未必正确。

So you can have someone that comes across a Dave Feldman article on LDL cholesterol, and they've read it and they're walking away with an assumption that they now have a level of understanding of that topic when really all they've done is read and internalized a number of points made, and those points may or may not be valid.

他们并没有能力去真正分析那篇文章。

So what they haven't done is take that article and actually analyse it because they don't have that ability to do so.

这就是我常思考的阅读与自以为理解，和批判性分析之间的区别。

So it's this difference that I sometimes think about between reading and broadly thinking you understand something versus critiquing and analysing.

而网络上大多数所谓的对话，其实只是人们在阅读和复述内容。

And most of what's passing for conversation out there really is people who are just, like, reading and saying stuff.

就像我们多次提到的这一点，但为了让听众更具体地理解，这就像是保罗·萨拉迪诺的初级课程。

Like, we've mentioned this one point a number of times, but I think for listeners, again, to take this out of the abstract, this is Paul Saladino one zero one.

他会光着膀子站在超市里大喊你的身体需要胆固醇，细胞膜需要它，它能做这个那个。

He'll stand there with his top off in a supermarket shouting that your body needs cholesterol, cell membranes need it, does this and that and that.

这些说法本身不一定错。

And none of that's necessarily wrong.

就像任何一个大一生物系学生那样，他好像只是读了这些内容。

Like any first year biology student, that's it's as if he's just read this stuff.

然后他就假设自己复述的东西就是知识、分析和背景，但其实不是。

And he's then assuming that what he's regurgitating is knowledge and analysis and context, and it's not.

但普通听众听到这些会想：天啊，胆固醇构成细胞膜和性激素，还能做这个那个。

But again, your average punter hearing that is, Oh my God, cholesterol makes cell membranes and sex steroid hormones, and it does this and that and the other.

但这只是阅读层面的理解。

And it's just reading.

这仅仅是读过的东西而已。

It's just stuff that's been read.

伴随着这种理解的假象，没有分析，没有背景，对任何内容都没有真正的专业知识。

And with this illusion of understanding, no analysis, no context, no actual expertise on what any of that means.

所以，是的，这可能只是种区别。

And so, yeah, that's maybe a distinction.

是的，这真的很有用。

Yeah, that's really useful.

这让我想起，我想提出另一个可能有用的区别来讨论。

And that kind of reminds me, I wanted to make one other distinction that might be useful to talk about.

一方面，我们可以讨论那些自诩为专家的人，其中一些我们刚提到过的人，我们当然还有更多要说的。

On one side we can talk about these people who are positioning themselves as experts, some of the people that we've just named and we'll certainly have more to say on that.

但另一方面，人们感觉自己在获取知识，几乎达到专家的水平，仅仅是作为这些内容的消费者。

But on this other side where people feel like they're acquiring knowledge in this area almost to the point of expertise just as a consumer of this content.

我对这些人中的许多人深表同情，正如我们在播客中讨论过的，我是说当我第一次读加里·陶布斯的书《饮食的迷思》（英国版）或《好卡路里，坏卡路里》（美国版）时。

Many of these people I have a lot of sympathy for because as we've talked about in the podcast, I mean the first time I read Gary Taubes' first book, The Diet Delusion as it was called in The UK or Good Calories, Bad Calories in The US.

我是说，你读这本书时会有种感觉，哦，这就像一部关于肥胖指南发展历程的历史巨著，讲述了我们如何陷入当前肥胖困境的来龙去脉。

I mean you read that and it's like, oh, this feels like a kind of historic tome of this everything that came into developing of guidelines and how we got to this position with obesity.

作为记录历史事件的文献，书中很多内容读起来很有趣，但显然大部分结论都是完全错误的。

And as a book of historical documentation of things that happened, a lot of it is cool to see, but much of the conclusions are obviously clearly completely wrong.

所以我完全能理解人们为何会吸收这些内容后自以为学到了知识，可惜那些都是错误的。

And so I can see how people consume that, feel that they've learned something, but unfortunately, it's incorrect.

但正如我所说，确实有许多人对这类知识充满兴趣，可能在过去的若干年里投入了大量时间研究。我相信你在社交媒体上也遇到过这类人——他们对自己坚信的某些观点如此固执，因为他们声称'我花了好几年研究这个'。

But there's a number of people who, like I said, who are really interested in learning this stuff and have done so much of it over maybe the last number of how many years, And I'm sure you've interacted with people like this on social media, I know I have, who are so steadfast in what they believe about some of these topics because they said, I've spent years looking at this stuff.

我花了多年时间自学这些知识。

I've spent years on my own learning about this.

但遗憾的是，他们的知识来源本身就是错误的。

And, unfortunately, for them, it's just be it's came from the wrong sources.

如果我们以LDL与动脉粥样硬化为例，这通常可能是圈外人士出于兴趣研究的领域——假设某人在过去五、六、七年里在线观看了大量相关内容，耗费了无数小时。

So if we think of the example of, again, LDL and atherosclerosis, this might generally be an interest of someone who is not involved in the field, but for their own interest, maybe, let's say, last five, six, seven years has consumed lots of this content online, hours and hours of this.

但他们可能把大量时间都花在了观看前精神科医生保罗·沙拉迪诺的YouTube视频，或是阅读阿西姆·马尔霍特拉的评论文章上。

But maybe they've spent a lot of that time consuming content that is YouTube videos by an ex psychiatrist like Paul Saladino, your opinion pieces by Asim Alhotra.

这些都不是向该领域的权威专家学习的结果。

And none of that is learning from the established domain experts.

对吧？

Right?

克里斯·帕卡德、布莱恩·费伦茨、简·伯恩、萨米娅·莫拉、汤姆·戴斯普林，我们提到的所有这些专家相关话题的人物。

Chris Packard, Brian Ferentz, Jan Bourne, Samia Mora, Tom Day Spring, all these people we've mentioned in relation to some of those expert topics.

事实上，这些人反而被轻蔑看待，因为他们所追随的那些人将这些专家描绘成某种阴谋集团的成员。

And in fact, those are looked at with disdain because, unfortunately, the people they are listening to paint them as, like, these people are in some sort of cabal.

对吧？

Right?

比如，这些都是错误信息。

Like, this is bad information.

所以现在不仅存在自封专家的问题，更严重的是，大量普通民众因为长期接触这类内容，自认为对这个话题非常了解。

And so now not only do you have the problem of the self position expert, probably even more problematically, you have vast numbers of people in the general population now who feel they have a really good grasp of this topic because they've spent so much time consuming it.

对吧？

Right?

他们真心认为自己很了解动脉粥样硬化，认为高LDL不是问题，或者认为关于饱和脂肪的整个理论都是编造的。

They really feel they have a good grasp of atherosclerosis, LDL isn't a problem at high, or diet and how the whole thing around saturated fat is all being made up.

他们觉得自己对此非常了解，这比完全不懂还要成问题。

They feel they have a really good grasp of it, and that is even more problematic than feeling like they don't know anything at all.

就像我说的，虽然有些同情，但这种现象相当普遍。

And like I said, feel some degree of sympathy, but that is something that's quite common.

这可能更是个真实存在的问题，像阿萨拉迪诺这样的人，他的言论有多少只是作秀赚钱，我真的不清楚。

And that's even probably more of a very genuine issue because some of these people like Assaladino, how much of his rhetoric is just performative and to make money, I don't really know.

但对那些在网络上无利可图、不求名声，却在社交媒体上与你我互动的人，你能看出他们真的坚信这些，并自认比你有专业知识，认为你发布的是过时错误信息而试图纠正你。

But for people who are just on the Internet with no money to gain or no notoriety to gain, who are interacting with you and I and others on social media, you can tell they really, really steadfastly believe this and really believe they do have some degree of expertise and believe they know far more than you about some of the topics that you're posting about because you're posting outdated, wrong information that they're trying to correct you on.

我认为这是个难题，不知如何解决。

And I think that is a problem that I don't know how we get around.

是啊。

Yeah.

这让我想起尼科尔斯在《专业之死》中的观点，他基本归咎于新闻业让人们形成了对事实信息的扭曲认知。

It reminds me of a point that Nichols made in The Death of Expertise, was basically he blamed journalism for giving people a distorted view of, like, facts and information.

正如我们刚才提到的，好的新闻应该基于事实。

And good journalism, like we just alluded to, will be fact based.

对吧？

Right?

它应该以事实为核心。

It'll be fact focused.

但这并不是现代信息环境的真正定义特征。

But that's not really what defines the modern information landscape.

博客或这类非传统主流的另类新闻来源，很大程度上是由观点主导的。

Blogs or these kind of alternative news sources that are outside of the traditional mainstream, it's very much opinion led.

即使在严肃报纸中，观点版块过去也只是周末出现的小部分内容。

Even in broadsheets, the opinion sections used to be what showed up on the weekends and more just a smaller part of.

但现在无论是《纽约时报》还是《卫报》，观点版块都成了主导内容。

But now the opinion section, whether it's The New York Times or The Guardian, is the driver of it.

这就造成了一种局面：针对某个议题构建的目的论叙事，对某些人来说显得极具说服力和真实感。

So this is creating a situation where a teleological narrative created on a given issue sounds really persuasive and truthy to someone.

我认为这正是许多饮食谬论的现状，正如我们讨论过的，在低碳水化合物这个总称下——无论是生酮饮食、肉食主义还是其他什么——大家都在重复同样的故事，重复到令人乏味的地步。

And I think that's I think that's what's playing out with certainly with a lot of the diet nonsense, right, is we've discussed how certainly within the low carb umbrella term community, keto, carnivore, whatever, it's the same stories, like to the point it's now boring.

所以无论Gary Taubes、Max Lucavare、Dave Feldman还是Paul Saladino，他们都会对饱和脂肪、Ansel Keys的七国研究、膳食指南等等，讲出完全相同的陈词滥调。

And so any number of people, whether it's a Gary Taubes or a Max Lucavare or a Dave Feldman or a Paul Saladino, or they're all going to have the exact same story about saturated fat, Ansel Kieh, seven country study, dietary guidelines, yada yada yada.

他们就像自动机器。

They're all automatons.

他们说的每个字都一模一样，却表现得像是真理的使者。

They all literally have the exact same thing, but they convey it as if like they're this harbinger of truth.

而这种姿态会让人们觉得他们说的很可信。

And I think that then sounds truthy to people.

我不知道这个领域的真正专家该如何反击这种现象。

I don't know how it ends up being combated by actual experts in the field.

但显而易见的是，总有人会全盘接受这些关于特定话题的故事和叙事。

But one thing that is certainly obvious in all of that is you have these people buying into stories and narratives about a given topic.

有趣的是——我们之前提到过Dave Feldman拍摄关于脂质假说的纪录片时，他曾到访英国，而心血管科学领域的顶尖学者很多都在英国。

And what's fascinating, and we mentioned this in relation to Dave Feldman and the documentary he was making about the lipid hypothesis, and he was visiting The UK and some of the leading minds in cardiovascular sciences are based in The UK.

然而他采访的却是阿西姆·阿尔霍特拉、佐伊·哈科姆等一群江湖骗子。

And yet he was interviewing Asim Alhotra, Zoe Harkom and a bunch of quacks.

我猜他压根没听说过布莱恩·法伦斯这个人。

There was nowhere I don't think he'd heard of Brian Farrance.

不，他听说过，因为法伦斯牵头起草了最初的EAS共识声明，但他却不认识克里斯·帕卡德教授，这太荒谬了。

No, he had because he led that original EAS consensus statement, but he hadn't heard of Professor Chris Packard, which is absurd.

所以他们只是在围绕自己感兴趣的领域构建叙事。

So they're forming narratives about whatever area they're interested in.

但耐人寻味的是，支撑这些叙事的恰恰是该领域真正顶尖专家的集体缺席。

But what's interesting is what's informing that narrative is the total absence of the actual genuine genuine leading experts in that field.

所以这...我也说不清。

And it's so it's I don't know.

我不知道这有什么解决办法——毕竟这些真正可信的学者都在忙着做正经科研、积累知识体系，谁有空跟超市里光着膀子对蔬菜大吼大叫的白痴争论。

I don't know that there's any sort of remedy or workaround for that, most of these highly credible people, of course, are not wasting their time arguing with a shirtless idiot who's standing in a supermarket shouting at vegetables because they're doing their real scientific work in generating a body of knowledge.

所以我认为现在其实是两个平行世界。

So I think really what we have now is two different worlds.