首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s
admin
2015-07-27
62
问题
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s Essays. My friend Margaret Rea and I spent hours wandering around Boston discussing the meaning and implications of the essays. Michel de Montaigne lived in the 16th century near Bordeaux, France. He did his writing in the southwest tower of his chateau, where he surrounded himself with a library of more than 1,000 books, a remarkable collection for that time. Montaigne posed the question, "What do I know?" By extension, he asks us all: Why do you believe what you think you know? My latest attempt to answer Montaigne can be found in Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic, originally published in January 2009 and soon to be out in paperback from the Oxford University Press.
Scientists tend to be glib about answering Montaigne’s question. After all, the success of technology testifies to the truth of our work. But the situation is more complicated.
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 interests 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 communal 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, a dialectic of 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 infuse 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 research. 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," she wrote in a book with that title. In the case of science, it is the commons of the mind where we find the answer to Montaigne’s question: Why do you believe what you think you know?
According to the third paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its
选项
A、uncertainty and complexity.
B、misconception and deceptiveness.
C、logicality and objectivity.
D、systematicness and regularity.
答案
A
解析
事实细节题。第三段第二句。But转折处指出在日常的实践中,科学发现常常遵循一个不确定而复杂的路径。题干中的process与文中的follows…route对应;因此答案选[A],uncertainty and complexity同义转述文中的ambiguous and complicated。该段末句提到的“误解、差错和自欺欺人时常发生”是我们以前的经验、知识和兴趣可能会对科学发现产生的影响,并不是其特点,故排除[B]。[C]和[D]是针对第三段首句提到的理想化状态下的科学发现所进行的错误推断。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/YMOO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
JamesJoyceisarepresentativeofthe"streamofconsciousness"school.HewroteallthefollowingworksEXCEPT
Insixteenth-centuryItalyandeighteenth-centuryFrance,waningprosperityandincreasingsocialunrestledtherulingfamilie
Everyculturehasacceptedstandardswhenitcomestopersonalhygiene.ForeignvisitorsshouldthereforebeawareofwhatAmer
Everyculturehasacceptedstandardswhenitcomestopersonalhygiene.ForeignvisitorsshouldthereforebeawareofwhatAmer
EffectiveAssignmentsUsingLibraryandInternetResourcesAwell-designedassignmentcanteachstudentsvaluableresearchskill
EffectiveAssignmentsUsingLibraryandInternetResourcesAwell-designedassignmentcanteachstudentsvaluableresearchskill
Supposeyouaredrivingoffahighwaywiththreelanesgoinginyourdirectionandyoucomeuponatellplazawith.sixtollboo
DrivingalongSouthStreet,wheretheLosAngelessprawlmeetssprawlingOrangeCounty,youenterandleaveCerritosthreetimes
DrivingalongSouthStreet,wheretheLosAngelessprawlmeetssprawlingOrangeCounty,youenterandleaveCerritosthreetimes
AccordingtotheLegalEveningNews,China’sCriminalLawislikelytoincludeanewchargeof"drivingamotorvehicleinadan
随机试题
PACS的中文意义是
Waston-Crick的DNA结构模型
肾之华在
2004年7月1日,某建筑公司与一客户签订一项固定造价建造合同,承建一幢办公楼,预计2005年12月31日完工。合同总金额为12000万元,预计总成本为10000万元;截至_2004年12月31日,该建筑公司实际发生成本3000万元,已结算工程价款3
不仅是企业盈利能力指标的核心,同时也是整个财务指标体系的核心指标是( )
下列句子中,没有语病的一句是()。
李某为写一篇关于各部委副职分工的论文,从2011年5月中旬开始,先后向14个部委申请公开各部委副职的分管部门、兼职状况等信息,但有三个部委拒绝公开。2011年9月,李某根据《政府信息公开条例》的规定,将这三个部委告上了法院,要求判决三个部委公开相关信息。在
钱钟书的《围城》主旨是()。
设A为三阶方阵,A1,A2,A3表示A中三个列向量,则|A|=().
______allcustoms,nomatterhowsacrosanct,areessentiallylearnedreactionsappropriateperhapsonlytotheholdersthereofi
最新回复
(
0
)