An analytical post applying critical thinking to another post with false information
This post was created by an immunology Ph.D. student whose focus is invasive virology. He breaks down a TikTok post that someone sent him. The post in question is a video of a page from a medical textbook, stating that the coronavirus is mild and only associated with the common cold. He points out that the textbook provided the best known science for when it was published–1989–but that much has happened since then. He goes on to review the timeline of world events and scientific discoveries that have rendered this textbook inaccurate. He sums the video up by connecting the progressive nature of science and medicine to vaccine safety.
What worked well here?
This post has a number of things going for it. First, it's real-life and application-based. It walks viewers through the critical analysis of a misleading post they may have actually come across on another social media platform and believed. Second, he's kind and respectful. He doesn't paint the book or the original poster as unintelligent. He approaches the situation as a legitimate mistake. Third, he doesn't present science as infallible. Portraying it as an ever-evolving field that must always do its best but be ready to prove itself wrong, makes it more trustworthy in the eyes of most people. Fourth, he's entertaining. He's young and funny. His dog even makes an appearance. These details humanize him and make him more believable.
To top it all off, some people won't take the time or be able to watch an almost 2 and a half minute video post. To reach a wider audience, he include all important details in the comment text.
What didn't work well?
It's difficult to find much of anything that didn't work well with this post. Unfortunately, those with a strong anti-science bias will likely not be persuaded by it still. For anyone on the fence, though, this type of post is perfect for de-bunking!
Comentarios