2. 职称英语
  3. Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. T

Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. T

游客2025-04-02  2
问题     Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Gallileo’s 17th century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake’s harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between science and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century.
    Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could afford to ignore its critics—but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked "antiscience" in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul R. Gross, a biologist at the University of Verginia, and Norman Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan of Cornell University. Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as "The Flight from Science and Reason," held in New York City in 1995, and "Science in the Age of (Mis) information", which assembled last June near Buffalo.
    Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Levitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics who have questioned science’s objectivity. Sagan is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview.
    A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research.
    Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, those manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pretechnological Utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are antiscience, as an essay in U.S. News & World Report last May seemed to suggest.
    The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth.
    Indeed, some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. "The term ’antiscience’ can lump together too many, quite different things," notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti Science. "They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened." [br] Which of the following is true according to the passage?
选项 A、Environmentalists were blamed for antiscience in an essay.
B、Politicians are not subject to the labeling of antiscience.
C、The "more enlightened" tend to tag others as antiscience.
D、Tagging environmentalists as "antiscience" is justifiable.
答案 A
解析 A项与文章的意思相符，依据是文章第6段第2句“可这绝不是说，对不加制止的工业发展表示担忧的环保主义者也是反科学的，而去年5月份刊登在《美国新闻与世界报道》上的一篇文章好像含有此种暗示”；B项不正确，从文章第5段的内容可知，1996年新闻报道的调查显示，反科学的标签也贴到了其他许多群体的身上，从倡导消灭最后残留的天花病毒群的官员到倡议缩减基础研究基金的共和党人；C项不正确，依据是文章最后一段最后一句话，即“反科学”一词可以包含太多完全不同的东西，而它们唯一的共同之处就是——它们往往会激怒那些自以为是、自恃清高的人；D项明显与文章的意思不符。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4023151.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)