2. 考研
  3. From The Tipping Point to Nudge, the rise of pop-social science has been a noticeable feature of the past decade in publishing.

From The Tipping Point to Nudge, the rise of pop-social science has been a noticeable feature of the past decade in publishing.

admin2014-06-25  48
问题     From The Tipping Point to Nudge, the rise of pop-social science has been a noticeable feature of the past decade in publishing. Not everyone is impressed. A professor of education who is an expert in policy evaluation lamented the fact that politicians tend to get their facts from popular social science books containing inaccuracies.
    I think the professor was right to worry about ministerial exposure to authors such as Malcolm Glad-well and Dan Ariely and even Tim Harford— but not for quite the right reasons. The problem is not that such authors are inaccurate. Gladwell has plenty of critics, but I find him a careful reporter. And I am told Tim Harford is all but infallible.
    Yet infallibility is not enough. It’s perfectly possible for an author to do nothing but weave together credible, peer-reviewed research and yet produce a highly partial view of reality. Different pieces of research invariably point in different directions. Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational is full of examples of irrational behaviour. My own Logic of Life is full of examples of rational behaviour.
    If Ariely describes a rainy day and I describe a sunny one, we are not really contradicting each other. We each offer our spin, but it’s really about whether most people expect sunshine or rain: Dan says that it’s rainier than we tend to think, while I say the sun shines more often than anyone would credit. A serious review of this metaphorical evidence would count up the rainy days and the sunny ones.
    For real policy questions, such reviews exist. They are called systemic reviews. They should be the first port of call for anyone wanting to understand what works. But they are not exactly bestsellers in airport bookshops.
    Quite apart from the fact that nobody wants to read all the evidence, there is a deep problem with the way evidence is selected throughout academia. Even a studiously impartial literature review will be biased towards published results. Many findings are never published because they just aren’t very intriguing. Alas, boring or disappointing evidence is still evidence. It is dangerous to discard it.
    The systemic review tries to track down unpublished research as well as what makes it into the journals. A less careful review will often be biased towards results that are interesting. A peer-reviewed article presents a single result, while a popular social-science book will highlight a series of results that tell a tale. The final selection mechanism is the reader, who will half remember some findings and forget the rest.
    Those of us who tell ourselves we are curious about the world are actually swimming in "evidence" that has been filtered again and again in favour of interestingness. It’s a heady and perhaps toxic drink, but we shouldn’t blame popularisers alone for our choice to dive in.
Predictably Irrational and Logic of Life are mentioned to show that______.
选项 A、nearly all the peer-reviewed researches are partial reviews of reality
B、two seemingly contradictory ideas can be in fact consistent with each other
C、the combination of two partial views can form a systemic one
D、the synthesis of accurate evidences may be a partial view of reality
答案D
解析 第二段前三句指出，一位作者完全有可能把可信的研究综合到一起，结果生成一种对现实带有高度偏见的看法。之所以如此是因为不同的研究指向不同。接着作者指出，丹·艾瑞里的作品《怪诞行为学》和自己的作品《生活的逻辑》实际内容并不矛盾，却呈现了相反的两种观点：前者充满了非理性的行为，而后者则强调生活中的理性。第四段进一步解释指出：两书作者(艾瑞里和我)诠释的角度不同导致了两书观点的差异。综上可知，文中提及两本作品的目的是在于说明：同为基于准确研究的两部作品却会因作者诠释角度的不同(而选用有利于阐释各自观点的研究证据，)结果呈现出两种对事实的片面观点，即：准确证据合成到一起可能会是一个关于现实的片面观点，因此[D]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/3GK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)