2. 考研
  3. How’s this for a cynical view of science? (46)"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making th

How’s this for a cynical view of science? (46)"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making th

admin2012-07-06  50
问题     How’s this for a cynical view of science? (46)"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Scientific truth, according to this view, is established less by the noble use of reason than by the stubborn exertion of will. One hopes that the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Planck, the author of the quotation above, was writing in an unusually dark moment.
    (47) And yet a large body of psychological data supports Planck’s view; we humans quickly develop an irrational loyalty to our beliefs, and work hard to find evidence that supports those opinions and to discredit, discount or avoid information that does not. In the laboratory, this is labeled confirmation bias; observed in the real world, it’s known as pigheadedness. Scientists are not immune. In an experiment, psychologists were asked to review a paper submitted for journal publication in their field. They rated the paper’s methodology, data presentation and scientific contribution significantly more favorably when the paper happened to offer results consistent with their own theoretical stance. Identical research methods prompted a very different response in those whose scientific opinion was challenged.
    This is a worry. Doesn’t the ideal of scientific reasoning call for pure, dispassionate curiosity? Doesn’t it positively shun the ego-driven desire to prevail over our critics and the prejudicial urge to support our social values? Perhaps not. (48) Some academics have recently suggested that a scientist’s pigheadedness and social prejudices can peacefully coexist with — and may even facilitate — the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
    Let’s take pigheadedness first. (49) In a much discussed article this year in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that our reasoning skills are really not as dismal as they seem. They don’t deny that irrationalities like the confirmation bias are common. Instead, they suggest that we stop thinking of the primary function of reasoning as being to improve knowledge and make better decisions. Reasoning, they claim, is for winning arguments. And an irrational tendency like pigheadedness can be quite an asset in an argumentative context.
    And what about scientists’ prejudices? Clearly, social values should never count as evidence for or against a particular hypothesis. However, the philosopher of science Heather Douglas has argued that social values can safely play an indirect role in scientific reasoning. Consider: The greater we judge the social costs of a potential scientific error, the higher the standard of evidence we will demand. Deciding which are the "better" criteria or the "better" background assumptions is not, Ms. Douglas argues, solely a scientific issue. It also depends on the social values you bring to bear on the research.
    For all its imperfections, science continues to be a stunning success. (50) Yet maybe progress would be even faster and smoother if scientists would admit, and even embrace, their humanity. [487 words]
选项
答案在《行为和脑科学》今年发表的一一篇颇受争议的文章里，认知科学家雨果·梅尔西埃和丹·斯比贝指出，人类的推理能力其实并不像其表现的那样差劲。
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/YMp4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)