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

admin2019-12-28  17

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 interest 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 fiew discovery and possiblv 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 techn010gY involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovenr.
    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 phvsiologist Albert once described discovery as“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobodv 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 0f reason.”
    请回答下列问题。
Albert 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 推断题。根据题干关键词定位在文章第四段。第七句指出…discovery as“seeingwhat everybody has been and thinking what nobody has thought.”,此句引用Albert的观点指出科学研究发现需要看到“每个人看到的,想到别人没想到的”,由此可知,他认为科学研究发现需要有观察、思考能力,因此D项“科学研究需要评判思维”为正确答案。A项“科学声明将经受住挑战”、B项“今天的发现引发未来的研究”都是对原文的曲解。C项“做出科学发现的努力是合理的”与段落关联不大,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/HBjY777K
0

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)