代写 ENV200HIS、c++，Python 编程代做
ENV200H1S Winter 2025
(last updated: January 13, 2025)
Tutorial #1 Science in the Media: Thinking Critically
DUE: January Feb 2, 2025
Access to news and information has never been easier, requiring only a few taps on our
electronic devices. However, not all this information is of equal value and we must learn to
better sort fact from fiction, and the credible from the mis- or disinformation. The past
decade has seen the proliferation of such terms as: misinformation, disinformation, fake
news, alternative facts, and the evolution of the information ecosystem.
To help you navigate these terms, some basic definitions as found on various university
library websites (U of Michigan - are provided below:
Misinformation - false or inaccurate information that is mistakenly or inadvertently created
or spread.
Disinformation - false information that is deliberately created and spread in order to
influence public opinion or obscure the truth.
Fake news - news stories that are false: the story itself is fabricated, with no verifiable facts,
sources or quotes.
Alternative facts - an alternative interpretation of a fact that is typically used in order to
serve one’s political or ideological purposes – regardless of whether the interpretation is
valid or not.
Information ecosystem – complex organizations of dynamic social relationships through
which information moves and transforms in flows.
Assessing the credibility of information can be even more confusing when it comes to
scientific information. Most people who are not scientists are presented with scientific issues
and advances through avenues like the internet, newspapers, radio/TV, or in conversation
with friends. In this tutorial, we will concentrate on digital & print media, but much of what
we look for in terms of credibility in scientific reporting applies to any media outlet or any
information source towards which we should maintain a healthy skepticism.
With respect to science, print media fall into three general types:
(1) The “primary” scientific literature is where scientists first publish the results of their
research. These are reports that are “peer” reviewed, meaning the information in the article
has been reviewed by 2-3 other scientists who are experts in the field. If in their and the
journal editor’s opinions, the information is credible and represents an advance of the field,
the article is published, otherwise it is rejected. In general, the peer reviewed literature is not
intended for a general audience as it assumes a familiarity with the discipline and a relatively
specialized vocabulary-often unique to the field. Two of the most influential peer-reviewed
pg. 2
journals are Nature and Science, as they publish important new advances across all fields of
science. Each discipline in science will also have its own specific journals.
(2) There are several secondary or “derivatory” sources of scientific information like
Scientific American, American Scientist, National or Canadian Geographic, which are not
“peer” reviewed but have proven reputations for accuracy and whose articles are often
written by working scientists for general audiences. Such articles are often highly
informative and are useful to both the interested public and professional audiences.
(3) Newspaper and magazine articles run the gamut of reliability as many of them report
with a media bias. Newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star employ
science journalists and are generally reliable, although the respective political sympathies of
the editors/publishers sometimes seem to influence the sorts of topics they cover.
Increasingly people have direct access to scientific information through the Internet,
however, this information should be reviewed with a critical eye. An advantage of the
Internet is that information is available in a completely uncensored format, but this can also
be a disadvantage. Often, we do not have sufficient experience with Internet based
information to make informed judgments. However, we should at least learn to look at
URL’s (.com sites are trying to sell something to someone; .org sites are usually advocating a
point of view, but often we simply can’t discern motivation from a URL. We should even be
skeptical of university sites that represent the personal views of university associated
individuals rather than course or research-based sites). There are credible peer-reviewed
“journals” on the Web, but “scientific” information accessed via newsgroups, discussion
boards, discord, blogs, Instagram, tweets or Tik Tok can range from correct to patently
fraudulent. This makes it difficult to decide what is factual from fiction. Increasingly our
information-based society will require its citizens to act as their own assessors of
information.
Should we believe something just because it is replete with facts, figures and theories? How
reliable are the figures? Is it a single number? Are the uncertainties associated with the
measurement reported? Even if the material was the best available information at the time the
text was written, data change, as we repeatedly experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Every day we are inundated by a flood of information and misinformation. Competing claims
and contradictory ideas battle for our attention, bombarding us with more information and
choices than we can possibly manage.
How can we know what to believe when the facts are confusing and even experts disagree?
Critical thinking is a set of skills that can help us evaluate information in a systematic,
purposeful manner. Critical thinking is sometimes compared to formal logic but it also
includes context, attitude and disposition.
Richard Paul, then chair of the National Council for Critical Thinking, breaks the process
into eight steps:
1. What question do I want to answer with this information?
2. Do I already have a point of view?
3. Am I picking and choosing among the available information?
pg. 3
4. How am I interpreting different/contrary information?
5. Am I reinforcing what I believed when I started my research?
6. What assumptions am I making?
7. What are the implications of accepting one conclusion versus another?
8. What would the consequences be of putting my conclusions into action?
These are self-reflective, self-correcting questions. For that reason, critical thinking has been
called "thinking about thinking." It is a plan for a rational analysis of a problem. Critical
thinking does not necessarily find fault, but it makes a conscious, disciplined effort to be
aware of hidden motivations and assumptions, to uncover bias and to recognize reliability (or
unreliability) of data.
Half the information now current in most fields will be obsolete in 5-7 years. How can you
plan for uncertainty around information? Learning to think critically will help you adapt to a
rapidly changing world.
Tutorial Objective:
To evaluate a media report on a commonly divisive scientific issue and gain appreciation for
how to assess the credibility of an article that purports to be about a scientific issue. To
practice critical thinking! We want to be able to discriminate between legitimate scientific
presentations and those which may be framed in a “scientific” context but are really
pseudoscientific or in the worst cases out and out fraud.
An issue that contributes to uncertainty around environmental issues is whether a new idea
might be testing the envelope at the frontiers of science to eventually be either accepted or
rejected. It is important to remember that legitimate disagreement is part of the process of
science. However, we have to be able to decide when a scientific consensus has been reached
and it is time to move on.
Tutorial Assignment:
Due: Sun Feb 2nd, 2025, submit through assignment link on Quercus
Read through Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit at:
https://www.inverse.com/article/30845-carl-sagan-baloney-detection-kit-fake-news
Visit the University of Toronto’s Scarborough libraries website on Thinking
Critically About Sources at:
https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=705826&p=5021876
Review A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science at:
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/
Find a recent article (either hard copy or from the web is acceptable) published within
the past year (2024/25 ), reporting on one of the following scientific issues:
o climate change;
o COVID19;
pg. 4
o infectious diseases;
o vaccines;
o renewable and alternative energy
o evolution
o nutrition
It should not be a peer reviewed article from a reputable science journal, since the whole
purpose of this exercise is to ask you to critically think about information that is being shared
in more popular ways. You can choose to select a piece of writing that is not strictly an
article published in a journal, magazine, newspaper, etc., but you should ensure that your
chosen piece of writing is substantive enough to allow you to carry out the assignment
objectives in a meaningful way. For example, a 250 word rant on a social media platform is
likely not a good choice for this exercise. As a guideline, your chosen article or piece of
writing should be a 5-minute read minimum. You may have to look through several sources
to find an article that is appropriate for this exercise. Note, your article must fall within the
2024/25 period, or you risk it being assigned a zero.
? Using a maximum of 1000 words, prepare a critical assessment of the credibility of
your chosen article incorporating as many of the relevant criteria (minimum 5
criteria) as outlined in the variety of resources provided, particularly the Rough Guide
to Spotting Bad Science source. You should clearly state in your thesis statement and
in your conclusion your final assessment on the authenticity or credibility of your
chosen article. You will likely have to carry out additional research to address some
of the criteria appropriately. Common practice is half truths, so your analysis may
involve identifying sections that may be accurate as well as other sections that may be
inaccurate and need to be debunked. Overall you need to provide a clear analysis of
whether you accept or reject the article’s credibility.
? Remember that critical thinking in this context does not necessarily simply mean to
find only fault with your chosen article. Within your minimum five criteria used in
your assessment, you should also be identifying and including areas in which it excels
or does well to support the article’s credibility.
Your assessment should be written in an essay format with an introduction, body and
conclusion, in full sentences with paragraphs.
Within your assignment you should:
Include a brief summary of your article, including its full citation within the
assignment itself.
You must attach or append a copy of your article to the back of your
assignment or submit as a separate file when you upload on Quercus. A
penalty of -50% if the article is not attached.
Use APA in-text citation method if appropriate.
Try to incorporate as many of the criteria as relevant (minimum 5) in making
your final assessment and be as explicit as possible to clearly identify how
you came to your conclusion on the article’s scientific credibility.
pg. 5
Your thesis statement and conclusion should clearly state your informed
assessment of the scientific credibility of your chosen article. Additional
research may be required.
Grading Rubric for Tutorial Assignments
Each assignment will be graded based on 3 major criteria:
Mechanics:
Follows assignment instructions addressing all identified requirements including reference
requirements and word counts. Writing is error free in terms of spelling and grammar.
Development of Ideas:
Arguments/main points are well developed and supported with substantial evidence. Ideas
are presented in an organized and logical manner.
References:
Appropriate references and in-text citations are used appropriately to enhance arguments.
Submission of assignments:
We will be using a plagiarism detection program within the online assignment function in
Quercus for submission of the written assignments in this course. Normally, students will be
required to submit their course essays to the University’s plagiarism detection tool website
for a review of textual similarity and detection of possible plagiarism. In doing so, students
will allow their material to be included as source documents in the University’s plagiarism
detection tool reference database, where they will be used solely for the purpose of detecting
plagiarism. The terms that apply to the University’s use of the University’s plagiarism
detection tool service are described on the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation web
site (https://uoft.me/pdt-faq).
If a student does not wish to submit to the online plagiarism tool, the student MUST advise
the head TA immediately as alternate arrangements for screening the assignment must be
arranged.
To avoid late penalties, assignments must be submitted to the Quercus Assignment function
before midnight on the posted due date.
When submitting your assignment on Quercus, the file should be saved in a single file, with
an extension of .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .pdf.
Late penalties
The late penalty on all assignments will be 2.5% of the assignment grade per day late,
including weekends and will only be waived with the Absence Declaration Tool on ACORN.
Note students may submit one absence declaration per academic term. If additional
absences occur within the term, students may need to contact their College Registrar or
pg. 6
submit a UofT Verification of Illness Form. More detailed information on the absence
declaration guidelines and eligibility can be found at:
https://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/current/academics/student-absences
Please note the declaration must cover the period of time you missed, e.g. the week before
the assignment/essay is due, etc.
Requests for extensions or queries about assignment should be sent no later than Friday @
5pm before the due date on Sunday.
Assignments will NOT be accepted one week past the due date even if accompanied by an
absence declaration form unless prior approval has been obtained from your TA, the head
TA, or the course instructor.
Academic Integrity
The following is taken from the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Integrity website
(http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/osai/students):
Academic integrity is fundamental to learning and scholarship at the University of Toronto.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in this academic community
ensures that the U of T degree that you earn will be valued as a true indication of your
individual academic achievement, and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it
deserves.
Familiarize yourself with the University of Toronto’s Code of Behaviour on Academic
Matters (http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/policies/behaveac.htm). It is the rule book
for academic behaviour at the U of T, and you are expected to know the rules. Potential
offences include, but are not limited to:
In papers and assignments:
Using someone else’s ideas or words without appropriate
acknowledgement.
Copying material word-for-word from a source (including lecture and study
group notes) and not placing the words within quotation marks.
Submitting your own work in more than one course without the permission
of the instructor.
Making up sources or facts.
Including references to sources that you did not use.
Obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance on any assignment
including
o working in groups on assignments that are supposed to be individual
work,
o having someone rewrite or add material to your work while “editing”.
pg. 7
Lending your work to a classmate who submits it as his/her own without
your permission.
On tests and exams:
Using or possessing any unauthorized aid, including a cell phone.
Looking at someone else’s answers
Letting someone else look at your answers.
Misrepresenting your identity.
Submitting an altered test for re-grading.
Misrepresentation:
Falsifying or altering any documentation required by the University, including
doctor’s notes.
Falsifying institutional documents or grades.
The University of Toronto treats cases of academic misconduct very seriously. All suspected
cases of academic dishonesty will be investigated following the procedures outlined in the
Code. The consequences for academic misconduct can be severe, including a failure in the
course and a notation on your transcript. If you have any questions about what is or is not
permitted in this course, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have questions about
appropriate research and citation methods, seek out additional information from me, or from
other available campus resources like the U of T Writing Website. If you are experiencing
personal challenges that are having an impact on your academic work, please speak to me or
seek the advice of your college registrar.
See also the handout “How Not to Plagiarize,” Margaret Proctor, 2009, available online a