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
2024-11-30
20
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/3867359.html
相关试题推荐
Inrecentyears.Universitymerger,ahottopicbothonandoffcampus,has
Asafourth-yearstudentabouttograduatefromauniversity,youhavebeen
Schoolsshouldaskstudentstohelpevaluatetheirteachers.Doyouagreeor
Inrecentyears,manycollegestudentshavemovedoutofdormitory.Theythi
Inrecentyears.Universitymerger,ahottopicbothonandoffcampus,has
WhenIwasagraduatestudentinbiochemistryatTuftsUniversitySchoolof
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
EndtheUniversityasWeKnowIt1.ProblemsconfrontingAme
随机试题
[originaltext]W:HeyTom,where’veyoubeenlately?M:Oh,I’vebeendoingload
Thelawonclrinkinganddrivingis______stated.A、extravagantlyB、empirically
有人说,生产安全事故防不胜防。例如2017年1月12日11点50分左右,安徽某市
性交后试验每高倍视野有多少个精子可认为正常A、20个以上 B、30个以上
2020年1-10月,我国规模以上互联网和相关服务企业(简称互联网企业)完成业务
下列表述不准确的是( )。A.城乡之间存在政策差异 B.城市规划与乡村规划的
首次将中国特色社会主义制度写入党的报告的是:A.党的十五大 B.党的十六大
表面新鲜红色或暗红色,条痕红色至褐红色,具光泽的药材是A.朱砂 B.自然铜
(2015年真题)国有资产管理部门对国有资产管理的主要内容包括()。A.对
施工企业对新结构、新材料的试验费属于( )。A.材料费 B.检验试验费 C
最新回复
(
0
)