In the idealized version of how science

最全题库2022-08-02 35

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 experience. 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’sanyone, 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 it 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-Gy?rgyi 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 test?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.

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

解析本题考查文章主旨。该种题型考查考生对文章的整体把握能力，文章开头讲述了理想的科学实践，但接着指到科学实践并非想象的那样简单，追求客观时不可避免会受到个人生活经验的影响，因此从声称的发现到真正的科学发现是一个验证可信性的过程，接着文章就此展开讨论，因此C项“科学工作可信性的发展过程”符合文章主旨。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2699133.html

本试题收录于：英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

In the idealized version of how science

英语一研究生

研究生入学