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
24
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] Paragraph 5 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it
选项
A、has attracted the attention of the general public.
B、has been examined by the scientific community.
C、has received recognition from editors and reviewers.
D、has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.
答案
B
解析
推理判断题。题干中的a discovery claim becomes credible对应第五段尾句中的an individua’sdiscovery claim into the community’s credible discovery,可见前面内容是在讲述科学界中发现申明转变成可信的发现需要经历的过程,综合概括这一过程的特征是:需要接受科学界的验证,所以答案选[B]。[A]在文中未提及:[C]和[D]均为discovery claim变成了credible discovery中涉及的一个部分,表述片面。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3862338.html
相关试题推荐
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
Anystudentsettingoutonacademiccareerinscienceislikelytobecomein
Anystudentsettingoutonacademiccareerinscienceislikelytobecomein
OneschoolnightthismonthIsidleduptoAlexander,my15-year-oldson,an
OneschoolnightthismonthIsidleduptoAlexander,my15-year-oldson,an
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
随机试题
TheChinesegovernmenthasofferedgreatsupporttoTibetintermsofmanpower,m
Whatisthemaintopicofthepassage?[br][originaltext]Japanese-stylec
Writeaboutthefollowingtopic:Therelationshipbetweenhumanbeingsandnatur
下列哪一种食物中所含烟酸为结合型,不能被人体吸收利用?()A.大米 B.小
患者,女性,30岁。腹痛、腹泻,米泔样便,怀疑霍乱弧菌感染,动力试验和制动试验观
某维生素类药物在三氯醋酸或盐酸存在下,经水解、脱羧、失水变为糠醛,加吡咯,加热至
如图D-17所示,将变频电源接在此电路中,R=50Ω,L=16μH,C=40μF
以1922年“新学制”为基础并略加修改,提出了《整理中华民国学校系统案》的是(
郑某为甲有限公司的经理,利用职务之便为其妻吴某经营的乙公司谋取本来属于甲公司的商
选择材料供货单位一般应考虑的情形有()。A.质量稳定 B.履约能力强 C.
最新回复
(
0
)