2. 考研
  3. Society understands the architecture of academia and knows there are relevant qualifications in different fields, and the media

Society understands the architecture of academia and knows there are relevant qualifications in different fields, and the media

admin2014-06-25  12
问题     Society understands the architecture of academia and knows there are relevant qualifications in different fields, and the media accepts the idea of specialisations and accords greater respect to those with greater expertise. With one exception; climate science. When it comes to this academic discipline, it seems that if you are a specialist in public sector food-poisoning supervision or possess a zoology PhD on sexual selection in birds, editors will seek your contrarian views more eagerly than if you have qualifications in climate science and a lifetime’s professional expertise. The press is further littered with climate "heretics" almost all of whom have academic backgrounds in history and literature with a diploma in media studies. One plant expert trying to argue that glaciers were advancing took his data(described as simply false by the World Glacier Monitoring Service)from a former architect.
    Contrary to the beliefs of some contrarians, academia welcomes the Galileos and encourages scepticism. It wants its hypotheses robustly tested precisely because it wants to pass those tests. Its stern system of peer review is sensible and conscientious. One more thing is required of academia; to play its role right at the heart of democracy. Being adequately informed is a democratic duty, just as the vote is a democratic right. A misinformed electorate, voting without knowledge, is not a true democracy. Society needs the expertise of academics in the most important issues; climate science above all.
    A democracy then needs the press to disperse academia’s knowledge and to do so with integrity. But the media’s ambition to be entertaining and provocative too often overrules its respect for intellectual rigour. Journalists cannot hold degrees in every subject they report on, but their job is not to claim they know the science better than the experts, or to practise that skilled deception of pretending there is controversy when the consensus is overwhelming. But a controversy is more fun, and the media—fleeing towards infotainment is losing sight of the core purpose of its activity: to be a truthful messenger, in this case between the world of academia and the public.
    I would propose a system of certification for media articles in which there is a clear issue of social responsibility—a kitemark of quality assurance. It would be awarded by teams of academics, and be given to the article, not the journalist, recognising the facts, not the sometimes deceptive credibility of being a "personality". It would be awarded when the article is accurate, using reliable sources and peer reviewed studies.
    The certification should be voluntary. I’m not against entertainment; if someone wants to read nonsense, let them, but I resent the appearance of parity between two articles on an issue as serious as climate change when one article is actually gibberish masked in pseudoscience and the other is well informed and accurate. Just because Galileo was a heretic doesn’t make every heretic a Galileo.
When it comes to climate science, editors tend to______.
选项 A、welcome amateur criticism
B、favor contrarian views
C、value expert advices
D、deny skeptical opinions
答案B
解析 首段第三、四句指出，在气候科学领域，编辑们对“相反观点”的渴盼程度要远高于对气候专家观点的重视，而报刊上更是充斥着气候“异端分子”的文章。由此可见，在气候科学领域，编辑们倾向于喜欢异端观点，[B]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/aQK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)