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
2014-12-11
69
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?
It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that credibility process requires
选项
A、strict inspection.
B、shared efforts.
C、individual wisdom.
D、persistent innovation.
答案
B
解析
推理判断题。由第四段第四句This is the credibility process,through which…可知,在credibilityprocess这一过程中,研究者个人变成了科学界中任何地点、任何时间的任何人,由此推断这一过程付诸了科学界所有人的共同努力,故答案为[B]。文中在提到这一过程需要scrutiny时,用词是communal scrutiny,可见仍在强调需要共同的审查,而不是[A]中所述的strict inspection;[C]是根据第四段第四句的individual设置的反向干扰;[D]是脱离文章的想当然。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/YDdO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
TheExaggeratedReportsoftheDeathoftheNewspaperFewtrendshavebeenasenthusiasticallychartedbythepressasthet
The(Non)RisksofMobilePhonesDomobilephonescauseexplosionsatpetrolstations?Thatquestionhasjustbeenexhaustiv
London’sleisureindustryhopesforabonanzainJulyandAugust,thankstotheOlympics.Tolurehordesofvisitors,acampaign
Watchdogsaregrowlingatthewebgiants,andsometimesbitingthem.Europeandata-protectionagencieswrotetoGoogle,Microsof
Inthe1960s,_____becameworldfamousandturnedtheirhometownofLiverpoolintoaplaceofpilgrimage.
IcametoAfricawithonepurpose:IwantedtoseetheworldoutsidetheperspectiveofEuropeanegocentricity.Thesimplestway
InChina,someofthemuseumschargeforadmission,withthefeebeingusedtocoverthecostsofoperation,maintenance,acquis
Foraclearerpictureofwhatthestudentknows,mostofteachersuse【M1】______anotherkindofexaminationinadditionto
A、Hergoalwastohelpthemcomeupwithamessageandmakeapicturethatrelatedtothemessage.B、Shewouldintroducetheles
Wheredopesticidesfitintothepictureofenvironmentaldisease?Wehaveseenthattheynowpollutesoil,waterandfood,that
随机试题
产褥感染最常见的部位是
在正常环境下,人身电击安全交流电压限值为()V。
下列对红线的理解哪项不正确?[2001-49]
关键线路是()。
根据物业管理企业业务活动的特点以及各责任实体的权限,责任中心一般分为()。
评价的指标和方法要简便、明晰、易于操作和推广,体现了音乐教学评价的()。
请用不超过200字的篇幅,概括出给定材料所反映的主要问题。要求:全面,有条理,有层次。就给定资料所反映的主要问题,用1200字左右的篇幅,自拟标题进行论述。要求中心明确,内容充实,论述深刻,有说服力。
国家与法律的关系体现在()。
一次聚会上,麦吉遇到了汤姆、卡尔和乔治三个人,她想知道他们三人分别是干什么的,但三人只提供了以下信息:三人中一位是律师、一位是推销员、一位是医生;乔治比医生年龄大,汤姆和推销员不同岁,推销员比卡尔年龄小。据上述信息麦吉可以推出的结论是?
设随机变量X1服从参数为p(0<p<1)的0一1分布,X2服从参数为n,p的二项分布,Y服从参数为2P的泊松分布,已知X1取0的概率是X2取0概率的9倍,X1取1的概率是X2取1概率的3倍,则P{Y=0}=_______,P{Y=1}=________.
最新回复
(
0
)