2. 考研
  3. In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective res

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective res

admin2019-06-11  44
问题    In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
   Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’ s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
   Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public(including other scientists)receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’ s discovery claim into the community’ s credible discovery.
   Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as "seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
   In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’ s reasoning and each other’ s conceptions of reason."
Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
选项 A、Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development
B、Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery
C、Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science
D、Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science
答案C
解析 主旨题。从整个文章脉络来看，文章第一段指出任何发现最终的目标是将它客观化，但是这 个过程多多少少会受到环境和背景的影响；第二段写到这个过程需要公众共同的努力：第三段具体 论述了不同的角色在这个过程中需要完成的工作；第四段则提出了使科学发现获得可信度的过程 中所遇到的两个矛盾；最后一段作者用Annette Baier的一句话总结了这个过程。由此可知，全文都 围绕科学发现的“取信过程”(即可信度从无到有的发展过程)展开论述，故C项“科学研究中可信 度的发展”为正确答案。A项“新颖是科学发展的引擎”与原文不符。B项“科学发现中的集体审查” 以偏概全。D项“科学人门处对可信度的质疑”只是对第四段的概括，也不能代表全文。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/8E9Z777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)