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
2024-12-24
13
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] Albert Szent-Gyorgyi would most likely agree that
选项
A、scientific claims will survive challenges.
B、discoveries today inspire future research.
C、efforts to make discoveries are justified.
D、scientific work calls for a critical mind.
答案
D
解析
观点态度题。由题干中的人名Albert Szent-Gy6rgyi将答案出处定位到第六段倒数第三句。该句提到Albert Szent-Gy6rgyi曾把发现描述为“见他人所见,想他人所未想”。结合后面提到的“但是思考没人想过的事情,再告诉别人他们漏掉了什么…”可知,Albert Szent-Gy6rgyi的言外之意就是科学工作需要敢于挑战已有的发现,需要有批判的精神,故答案为[D]。[A]和[B]是第一个悖论中涉及的观点,故排除。[C]与该段讲述内容无关,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3882813.html
相关试题推荐
WilliamMakepeaceThackeray’smostfamousworkisA、TheSchoolforScandal.B、Pas
Anystudentsettingoutonacademiccareerinscienceislikelytobecomein
OneschoolnightthismonthIsidleduptoAlexander,my15-year-oldson,an
OneschoolnightthismonthIsidleduptoAlexander,my15-year-oldson,an
Itiscommonforstudentsinhighschooltowonderifcollegeeducationis
Itiscommonforstudentsinhighschooltowonderifcollegeeducationis
Itiscommonforstudentsinhighschooltowonderifcollegeeducationis
Itiscommonforstudentsinhighschooltowonderifcollegeeducationis
Itiscommonforstudentsinhighschooltowonderifcollegeeducationis
Itiscommonforstudentsinhighschooltowonderifcollegeeducationis
随机试题
DetroitseemstobewhereWallStreetmeetsMainStreet.Tightcreditisrec
LivingwithParentsafterGraduationDirections:Forthispart,youareallowed
A------marketpriceJ------identitycardB------check-intime
构思:写作:发表A.点火:燃烧:熄灭 B.播种:耕耘:收获 C.改革:
小明,男,4岁,2岁时父母因为双方家庭矛盾离异,小明由母亲抚养。小明从小目睹了双
(2017年5月)情境模拟测试的主要特点是针对( )进行测试。A.被试者明显的
人在每一瞬间,将心理活动选择了某些对象而忽略了另一些对象。这一特点指的是注意的(
某医院安排甲、乙、丙、丁、戊、已6位医生在大年初一、初二、初三值班,每天需要2人
在财务报表的可靠性问题中,下列各项中不属于常见的危险信号的是()。A.财务
胚胎组织滞留宫腔内过久,易导致凝血功能障碍的是( )。A.完全流产 B.不全
最新回复
(
0
)