双语阅读：多样化社区科普也要讲究方法.docVIP

When hundreds of Californians invaded the state capitol last week to demand the right not to vaccinate their kids, they were playing out a very modern conflict: science versus belief systems. Scientists tell parents that vaccinations are safe. But many parents prefer to trust their gut instinct that they’re not safe. This dialogue of the deaf is becoming the norm. Increasingly, people make their own decisions on health and diet, instead of outsourcing them to scientists, doctors or governments. 不久前，数百名美国加州人闯入州议会大厦，要求拥有不让自己的孩子接种疫苗的权利，他们演绎了一场极为现代的冲突——科学vs观念体系。科学家告诉家长接种疫苗是安全的，但许多家长宁愿相信自己的直觉——接种疫苗不安全。这种鸡同鸭讲式的对话已成常态。人们在健康和饮食方面越来越自作主张，而不是相信科学家、医生或政府。 If you want to change people’s behaviour, don’t recite science at them, says Alan Dangour, nutritionist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Rather, to nudge people to better decisions, we need to understand how they decide. Behavioural economics has identified cognitive biases that influence our decisions about money. Here are some biases and misjudgments that shape decisions on health and diet: 伦敦卫生暨热带医学院(London School of Hygiene Tropical Medicine)营养学家阿伦?丹古尔(Alan Dangour)表示，如果你想改变人们的行为，不要跟他们大讲科学道理。相反，想劝人们作出更好的决定，我们需要去了解他们是怎么做决定的。行为经济学已发现多种影响人类消费决定的认知偏见。以下是一些影响人们决定健康和饮食方式的偏见和错误观念： “‘Natural’ is good.” “‘天然的’就是好的” When faced with complex problems, people often resort to a heuristic: a pragmatic, simplified mental shortcut. A common shortcut is to use labels such as “natural”, “organic”, “local” or “homeopathic” as proxies for healthy. Conversely, “artificial” gets equated with unhealthy. This heuristic appeals partly because it relies on words. Not everyone understands science but we all know language. 当面对复杂问题时，人们往往会采用启发法(heuristic)，这是一种务实、简单化的心理捷径(mental shortcut)。常见的捷径之一是使用“天然”、“有机”、“本地”或“顺势疗法”等标签代表健康。反之，“人造的”就等同于不健康的。这种启发法之所以具有吸引力，部分在于它依靠文字。不是人人都懂科学，但所有人都懂语言。 Sometimes, natural actually is good. The World Health Organisation announced last month that the world’s most common weedkiller, glyphos