2. 考研
  3. Ifs a brave man who claims "genius in science has become extinct". But that’s exactly what psychologist Dean Keith Simonton decl

Ifs a brave man who claims "genius in science has become extinct". But that’s exactly what psychologist Dean Keith Simonton decl

admin2014-06-25  3
问题     Ifs a brave man who claims "genius in science has become extinct". But that’s exactly what psychologist Dean Keith Simonton declared in Nature magazine. By this, he meant that neither the creation of a totally new discipline nor a revolution in scientific thought was likely to be forthcoming as the result of the work of a future lone heroic genius. If such radical developments were to occur, they would emerge from the work of large teams, he argued. Thus the world was unlikely to produce a further Newton, Einstein or Darwin and he saw this as a tragic failing.
    I tend to agree with his analysis of how future discoveries will be made, with the possible exception of purely theoretical challenges; think of Andrew Wiles and his proof of Fermafs last theorem as one exception that proves the rule. But for experimental sciences, a lone researcher transforming the world is harder to imagine. No individual can sit down at a bench and nail down the existence of the Higgs boson; the Large Hadron Collider is needed with its concomitant community of researchers. The heroic genius was always something of a myth, convenient shorthand to make it easier to make a narrative out of the act of discovery; an exciting tale, but not a very accurate depiction of how science and scientists operate. Newton wrote; "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants", recognising that his discoveries did not come about in isolation. Why should discovery need to be the work of a single mind to make it exciting? It will be just as important whether it is the product of one brain or one thousand.
    Concentrating on the brilliance of an individual is to falsify the nature of most scientific research and mislead the aspiring scientist as to how discoveries are usually made. Why should it be attractive to the young to believe they need to be solitary workers—the white-coated, wild-haired researcher of too many films -if they are to succeed? Some scientists might fit that picture, but far fewer than you’d believe from their media portrayals and ifs an image likely to be off-putting to many.
    Science progresses because people become expert in what is already known and then debate, argue, try something out and then something else when the first doesn’t fit. It progresses because people reject or refine hypotheses as they learn about colleagues’ and rivals’ work and because people both share ideas and compete. Out of such endeavours novel ideas emerge and new fields develop.
    Perhaps there will be more geniuses in the future, perhaps not. Science will always attract people with astonishing minds. But these will never be as important as the broader social structures of science, let alone as important as they think they are. Fundamentally, what matters is that, as a society, we continue to push at the boundaries of scientific knowledge in whatever way is appropriate for the challenge in hand.
The rule"(Line 3, Para. 2)refers to the statement that______.
选项 A、geniuses in theoretical sciences will continue to emerge
B、the creation of new disciplines will be extremely difficult
C、teamwork is becoming the driving force for scientific advance
D、geniuses in science are regarded as heroes of our society
答案C
解析 首段介绍专家观点指出，巨大的科学进步不再出自独立的英雄式天才之手，而是会出自科学团队。第二段首句先承认专家的分析有道理，然后立即指出纯理论研究是个例外，并以安德鲁·怀尔斯证明了“费马大定理”一事进行例证。安德鲁·怀尔斯的例子表明，在理论科学领域，巨大突破仍有可能出自独立的科学天才之手。这个例子实际上否定了首段专家提出的观点，即“未来的科学发现将出自团队合作”这一规律。[C]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/iFK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)