首页
登录
职称英语
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of
游客
2024-11-27
18
管理
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? [br] 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://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3862336.html
相关试题推荐
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
Anystudentsettingoutonacademiccareerinscienceislikelytobecomein
Anystudentsettingoutonacademiccareerinscienceislikelytobecomein
OneschoolnightthismonthIsidleduptoAlexander,my15-year-oldson,an
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
随机试题
Itwouldbeinterestingtodiscoverhowmanyyoungpeoplegotouniversityw
根据《文化部关于落实安全生产责任加强文化市场安全生产工作的通知》文化市场经营单位
人们不能同时反映周围的一切事物,而是根据主体的活动需要有选择地指向一定的对象,忽
下面谱例出自哪部管弦乐作品?() A.拉威尔《波菜罗舞曲》 B.德彪西
市净率与市盈率都可以作为反映股票价值的指标.()。 Ⅰ.市盈率越大,说明
2016年1月1日,某企业向银行借入资金600000元,期限为
关于要约的说法,正确的是( )。A.要约必须以结缔合同为目的 B.要约的内容
水泥中掺加混合料的作用是( )A.提高水泥产量 B.降低水泥强度 C.提高
水平分层填筑法的说法正确的有()。A.从路基一端或两端按横断面全部高度,逐步推
使事故责任者和广大群众了解事故发生的原因及所造成的危害,并深刻认识到搞好安全生产
最新回复
(
0
)