2. 考研
  3. In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective res

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective res

admin2019-11-21  50
问题    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 collective 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, the 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 exist throughout 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 re-search. 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 Azent-Gyoergyi 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."
选项
答案 在科学研究的理想状态下，有关世界的事实真相有待客观的研究人员通过科学的科研方法加以观察和收集。然而，在日常的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊而复杂的路径。虽然我们力求客观，但却无法摆脱我们所处的独特的生活经验背景。先前的知识和兴趣会影响我们的阅历及对阅历的理解，并影响我们随后所采取的行动。误解、错误与自我欺骗随处可见。 因此，有关新发现的声明应被视为准科学。它们和新近探明的采矿声明一样颇具潜力。但若要把某个发现声明转换为成熟的发现，则需要研究人员集体进行仔细的调查并令之为大家所接受。这是一个授信的过程，研究人员从中由个体的“我”“这里”和“现在”变成了集体中的“任何人”“任何地方”和“任何时间”。客观知识并非起点，而是最终目标。 一旦一项发现声明公诸于众，发现者便获得了知识上的信用。但有别于采矿声明(发现者可对所探明的矿产拥有开采权)。随后发生的一切是由科学界共同掌控的。科学界具有错综复杂的社会结构，在这当中，研究人员做出新发现；编辑与评审员充当把关人，控制着发现声明的整个发表过程；其他科学家则根据各自的需要运用这个新发现；最后，公众(包括其他科学家在内)接受了该新发现和可能随之而来的技术。人们对相关的科学技术通常持有共同或是对立的信念，随着整个发现声明逐渐成功地进入科学界，这些信念之间的互动与冲突就会把个人的发现声明转化成整个科学界认可的发现。 在这个证明可信性的过程中始终存在着两种对立面。首先，科学研究工作倾向于关注被视为不完整或不正确的流行知识的某些方面。复制并证实那些众所周知且为人所信的东西是没有回报的。科学研究工作的目标是新探索，而不是重新探索。不足为奇的是，那些看起来重要而有说服力的新发表的发现声明和可信发现总是要迎接挑战和面对可能的修正，甚至是未来研究人员的驳斥。其次，新颖事物本身就经常会引起人们的质疑。诺贝尔奖得主、生理学家Albert Azent-Gyoergyi曾经将发现描述为“观察人人都看到的，思考没人曾想到的。”但思考人们所未想到的东西并告诉他们遗漏了什么，这可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候，需要花费好多年的时间才能使真正新颖的发现声明被人们所接受和认可。 最后，一个发现声明获得了信任，这个过程类似于哲学家安尼特-拜尔所描述的“心灵的共性”。“我们共同去推理，去质疑，去修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。”
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/3Oe4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)