在关于生牛奶讨论中识别宣传内容
以下是一篇关于生牛奶的文章，来源于一个据称可靠的渠道：https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/well/eat/health-myths-dairy.html
问题在于，我们是否能够识别出一种试图说服我们得出结论的行为，而不是进行开放的讨论。
有几个迹象可以表明这是宣传，其中一个显著的迹象是使用“引导”我们思考的技巧，以控制叙事。重要的事件是：“她说，‘可能会破坏牛奶中某些营养素的一小部分，但这不足以对其营养价值产生实质性影响。’”
我们应该关注的地方是“营养素”。嗯，这真的是关于牛奶的实质性问题吗？我们可以通过思考为什么大多数建议母亲给孩子哺乳来考虑这个问题。如果巴氏消毒牛奶仅与母乳在“营养素上有少量差异”，那么为什么会这样呢？事实上，我们并没有发现有实质性的建议要求母亲在喂养孩子之前对牛奶进行巴氏消毒。确实还有其他原因不推荐这样做，但如果存在安全问题，在合理的讨论中，应该会提到这个问题。
也许我们可能是在努力将讨论限制在“营养素”上。生牛奶中是否还有其他成分实际上受到巴氏消毒影响，这会影响讨论？
我在这里并不是在为生牛奶辩护或反对，而是对如何识别宣传感兴趣。我个人认为生牛奶的讨论已经变得耸人听闻。但这种“引导”的讨论让我想知道，谁得利？为什么《纽约时报》会产生如此拙劣的推理？
我越来越意识到有一些努力在用各种技巧“引导”讨论，并且在想其他人是否也看到了同样的现象。
查看原文
Here is an article about raw milk from a supposedly reputable source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/well/eat/health-myths-dairy.html<p>The question is whether we can detect an attempt to persuade us of a conclusion as opposed to having an open discussion.<p>There are several indicators or propaganda and one prominent one is the use of techniques to "guide" our thinking. To control the narrative. The significant event is this: "may destroy a small amount of certain nutrients in milk, she said, it’s not enough to make a real difference in how nutritious it is."<p>The place we are supposed to look is "nutrients". Hmmm. Is that the substantial issue about milk? We can think about this by wondering why most recommendations for mothers are to breast feed their children. Why would this be the case if pasteurized milk only differed from mother's milk by "a small amount of nutrients"? In fact we find no substantial recommendation that mothers pasteurize their milk before feeding it to children. There are certainly other reasons this is not recommended, but still if there is an issue of safety, one would expect in a reasonable discussion that this issue would be addressed.<p>Perhaps what we are possibly is some effort to limit the discussion to "nutrients". Are there possibly other components of raw milk that are in fact affected by pasteurization would affect the discussion?<p>I am not arguing here for or against raw milk. Instead I am interested in how to detect propaganda. I personally believe the raw milk discussion has become sensationalist. But this kind of "directed" discussion makes me wonder cui bono? And why is the NYT producing such shoddy reasoning?<p>I am increasingly aware of efforts to "guide" discussion with a range of techniques and wondering if other people see the same thing.