首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s
When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s
admin
2012-12-01
60
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?
Paragraph 5 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it
选项
A、has attracted the attention of the general public.
B、has been examined by the scientific community.
C、has received recognition from editors and reviewers.
D、has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.
答案
B
解析
推理判断题。题干中的a discovery claim becomes credible对应第五段尾句中的an individua’sdiscovery claim into the community’s credible discovery,可见前面内容是在讲述科学界中发现申明转变成可信的发现需要经历的过程,综合概括这一过程的特征是:需要接受科学界的验证,所以答案选[B]。[A]在文中未提及:[C]和[D]均为discovery claim变成了credible discovery中涉及的一个部分,表述片面。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/NJaO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Behindthebrewingwaroverprotectingpatients’recordsinanageofHMOsandonlinemedicine.Technologyisatwo-edgedswor
Thefourmajormodesofsemanticchangeare______.
Traditionally,thestudyofhistoryhashadfixedboundariesandfocalpoints—periods,countries,dramaticevents,andgreatlea
A、helpingchildrentoacquiregoodhabits.B、reinforcingwhattheparentsaredoing.C、startingchildrenreadingandwriting.D、
HowtoReadEffectivelyManystudentstendtoreadbookswithoutanypurpose.Theyoftenreadabookslowlyandingreatdetail
A"scientistic"viewoflanguagewasdominantamongphilosophersandlinguistswhoaffectedtodevelopascientificanalysisof
Tolive,learn,andworksuccessfullyinanincreasing【M1】______complexandinformation-richsociety,studentsmustbeable
CommunitycourtsandcommunityjusticeprevailedinEnglandatthetimeoftheNormanConquest(1066).Thelegalsystemwasritu
Tellaninvestmentbankerthatapictureboughtin1950for$30,000soldthismonthfor$104.1millionandyouwillbeunluckyi
把亲情放在适当的位置上,双方都不致失落。人到中年,亲情的互动,是阶段性的幸福,不要赋予它太严肃的意义,也不要把它看得无足轻重。上帝不允许孩子永远记住父母入骨的爱,那将使他们无法成长;也不允许父母永远记住自己对儿女所做的牺牲,那将使老人陷于期待回报的自怜。而
随机试题
下列划线词语解释不正确的是()
肘关节后脱位,可有下列哪项表现()
用均数与标准差可以全面描述()的分布特征
城市桥梁工程包括()的建设、养护与维修工程。
数量金额式账簿的收入、发出和结存三大栏内,都分设()三个小栏。
欢欢的妈妈是幼儿园园长的好朋友。带班的何老师知道后,在课堂教学中给予欢欢更多表现的机会,并让其担任小助手。何老师的行为()。
公安工作具有(),需要党的领导去动员、组织和协调各方面的力量。
122,143,170,195,226,()
表示滚动条控件取值范围最大值的属性是()。
Afewyearsago,ItookasightseeingtriptoWashingtonDC.Isawmanyofournation’streasures,andIalsosawalotofourf
最新回复
(
0
)