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
Passage Three (1) Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’
Passage Three (1) Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’
admin
2022-09-27
34
问题
Passage Three
(1) Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’s what I tell my students, ad nauseam. And some learn the lesson too well.
(2)I want to give my students the benefit of my hard-won knowledge of science’s fallibility. Early in my career, I was a conventional science writer, easily impressed by scientists’ claims. Fields such as physics, neuroscience, genetics and artificial intelligence seemed to be bearing us toward a future in which bionic superhumans would zoom around the cosmos in warp-drive spaceships. Science was an " endless frontier," as physicist Vannevar Bush, a founder of the National Science Foundation, put it in 1945.
(3) Doubt gradually undermined my faith. Scientists and journalists, I realized, often presented the public with an overly optimistic picture of science. By relentlessly touting scientific "advances"—from theories of cosmic creation and the origin of life to the latest treatments for depression and cancer—and by overlooking all the areas in which scientists were spinning their wheels, we made science seem more potent and fast-moving than it really is.
(4) Now, I urge my students to doubt the claims of physicists that they are on the verge of explaining the origin and structure of the cosmos. Some of these optimists favor string and multiverse theories, which cannot be confirmed by any conceivable experiment. This isn’t physics any more, I declare in class, it’s science fiction with equations!
(5)I give the same treatment to theories of consciousness, which attempt to explain how a three-pound lump of tissue—the brain—generates perceptions, thoughts, memories, emotions and self-awareness. Some enthusiasts assert that scientists will soon reverse-engineer the brain so thoroughly that they will be able to build artificial brains much more powerful than our own. Balderdash! I tell my classes (or words to that effect). Scientists have proposed countless theories about how the brain absorbs, stores and processes information, but researchers really have no idea how the brain works. And artificial-intelligence advocates have been promising for decades that robots will soon be as smart as HAL or R2-D2. Why should we believe them now?
(6) Maybe, just maybe, I suggest, fields such as particle physics, cosmology and neuroscience are bumping up against insurmountable limits. The big discoveries that can be made have been made. Who says science has to solve every problem?
(7) Lest my students conclude that I’m some solitary crank, I assign them articles by other skeptics, including a dissection of epidemiology and clinical trials by journalist Gary Taubes in The New York Times. He advises readers to doubt dramatic claims about the benefits of some new drug or diet, especially if the claim is new. "Assume that the first report of an association is incorrect or meaningless," Taubes writes, because it probably is. "So be skeptical. "
(8) To drive this point home, I assign articles by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who has exposed the flimsiness of most peer-reviewed research. In a 2005 study, he concluded that "most published research findings are false. " He and his colleagues contend that "the more extreme, spectacular results (the largest treatment effects, the strongest associations, or the most unusually novel and exciting biological stories) may be preferentially published. " These sorts of dramatic claims are also more likely to be wrong.
(9) The cherry on this ice-cream sundae of doubt is a critique by psychologist Philip Tetlock of expertise in soft sciences, such as politics, history, and economics. In his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment, Tetlock presents the results of his 20-year study of the ability of 284 " experts" in politics and economics to make predictions about current affairs. The experts did worse than random guessing, or "dart-throwing monkeys," as Tetlock puts it. Like Ioannidis, Tetlock found a correlation between the prominence of experts and their fallibility. The more wrong the experts were, the more visible they were in the media. The reason, he conjectures, is that experts who make dramatic claims are more likely to get air time on CNN or column inches in The Washington Post, even though they are likelier to be wrong.
(10) For comic relief, I tell my students about a maze study, cited by Tetlock, that pitted rats against Yale undergraduates. Sixty percent of the time, researchers placed food on the left side of a fork in the maze; otherwise the food was placed randomly. After figuring out that the food was more often on the left side of the fork, the rats turned left every time and so were right 60 percent of the time. Yale students, discerning illusory patterns of left-right placement, guessed right only 52 percent of the time. Yes, the rats beat the Yalies! The smarter you are, the more likely you may be to "discover" patterns in the world that aren’t actually there.
(11) So how do my students respond to my skeptical teaching? Some react with healthy pushback, especially to my suggestion that the era of really big scientific discoveries might be over. " On a scale from toddler knowledge to ultimate enlightenment, man’s understanding of the universe could be anywhere," wrote a student named Matt. " How can a person say with certainty that everything is known or close to being known if it is incomparable to anything?"
(12) Other students embrace skepticism to a degree that dismays me. Cecelia, a biomedical-engineering major, wrote; "I am skeptical of the methods used to collect data on climate change, the analysis of this data, and the predictions made based on this data. " Pondering the lesson that correlation does not equal causation, Steve questioned the foundations of scientific reasoning. "How do we know there is a cause for anything?" he asked.
(13) In a similar vein, some students echoed the claim of radical postmodernists that we can never really know anything for certain, and hence that almost all our current theories will probably be overturned. Just as Aristotle’s physics gave way to Newton’s, which in turn yielded to Einstein’s, so our current theories of physics will surely be replaced by radically different ones.
(14) After one especially doubt-riddled crop of papers, I responded, "Whoa!" (or words to that effect). Science, I lectured sternly, has established many facts about reality beyond a reasonable doubt, embodied by quantum mechanics, general relativity, the theory of evolution, the genetic code. This knowledge has yielded applications—from vaccines to computer chips—that have transformed our world in countless ways. It is precisely because science is such a powerful mode of knowledge, I said, that you must treat new pronouncements skeptically, carefully distinguishing the genuine from the spurious. But you shouldn’t be so skeptical that you deny the possibility of achieving any knowledge at all.
(15) My students listened politely, but I could see the doubt in their eyes. We professors have a duty to teach our students to be skeptical. But we also have to accept that, if we do our jobs well, their skepticism may turn on us.
What does the author think of scientific skepticism?
选项
A、It mustn’t be encouraged among students.
B、It may do great harm to the basis of science.
C、It should be limited in an appropriate degree.
D、It will lead to a new era of big discoveries.
答案
C
解析
态度题。本题涉及作者的主要观点,需结合全文解答。作者在文章开篇之时就说自己一直强调学生要具备科学质疑的精神,随后在第十二段和第十三段援引一些学生的质疑观点,并在第十四段中明确地对过去的科学发现和理论表示了肯定,并指出要以怀疑的态度对待新的言论,要仔细分辨,不能全盘否定,可见,他认为科学质疑应该限制在合理的程度内,故答案为[C]。从文章开头就能看出作者是在鼓励学生要有质疑精神,故排除[A];作者并没有提到质疑会伤害到科学的根本,[B]缺乏原文依据,故排除;作者在第六段中提到科学发现在某些领域可能已经遇到了瓶颈,所以科学大发现时代即将到来不是作者的看法,故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/cGBK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
EffectiveNote-takingThedifficultyoftakingnotes:Note-takingrequiresahighlevelofabilityduetothe【T1】______ofspoke
A、Destiny.B、Genes.C、Personality.D、Family.B当主持人问Gaga在什么时段开始知道自己想成为一名歌手时,她回答在出生时就知道了。言外之意是Gaga认为基因造就了她将来要成为歌手,因此选择B项。
TypesofLanguageTestingI.Placement—sortnewstudentsinto【T1】______【T1】______—testthestudent’s【T2】______ratherthansp
...Finally,oneoftheprimarypurposesofartisto【T1】______athand.Subjectmatterdoesnotchangeallthatmuchovertime.
WhatCanWeLearnfromArt?I.IntroductionA.Differencebetweengeneralhistoryandarthistory—Focus:—generalhistory:【T1
FiveCommonMistakesinConversationandTheirSolutionsI.NotlisteningA.Problem:mostpeopledon’tlisten—waiteagerlyf
FiveCommonMistakesinConversationandTheirSolutionsI.NotlisteningA.Problem:mostpeopledon’tlisten—waiteagerlyf
CulturalDifferencesbetweenEastandWestI.FactorsleadingtotheculturaldifferencesA.Differentculture【T1】______【T1】_
A、Duringthechildhood.B、Inthemiddleage.C、Attheoldstage.D、Throughoutlife.D本题考查人们的心智能力什么时候开始受年龄影响。采访者问人们的心智能力是不是会受老年影响
(1)Thattitlealwayshadgrandeurtoit."MissAmerica."Ah,thissimple,arrogantbrilliance!ItsuggestsaPromqueenwhowant
随机试题
李白《行路难》中“闲来垂钓碧溪上”一句中的人物是指_______。
A.盐酸苯海拉明B.盐酸赛庚啶C.盐酸西替利嗪D.盐酸曲吡那敏E.马来酸氯苯那敏丙胺类抗组胺药
关于管型的叙述,正确的是()
女,28岁,间断下腹痛4年余,大便2~3次/日,稀便,无脓血,便后下腹痛可缓解,粪常规检查:未见细胞,隐血试验阴性,查体无异常发现。该患者最适合的治疗药物是
A.国家药典委员会B.中国药品生物制品检定所C.口岸药品检验所D.省级药品检验所E.县级药品检验所负责全国性药品质量监督检验的部门是()
某股票看涨期权(A)执行价格和权利金分别为61.95港元和4.53港元,该股票看跌期权(B)执行价格和权利金分别为67.5港元和6.48港元,此时该股票市场价格为63.95港元,则A、B的时间价值大小关系是()。
假设某投资者2013年1月31日买入某公司股票,每股价格2.6元,2014年1月30日卖出价格为3.5元,其间获得每股税后红利0.4元,不计其他费用,该投资者的投资收益率为()。
参观教学法分为()。
随着城市化的推进,地下空间的开发利用越来越成为媒体的热点话题。在“高度”“广度”不断拓展的今天,地下空间所标注的“深度”,为城市打开了更加立体的发展格局。有研究将21世纪称为“地下空间开发利用发展的世纪”,也有国家将地下空间归为“新型国土资源”。可以说,地
设信号的波特率为500Baud,采用幅度.相位复合调制技术,由4种幅度和8种相位组成16种码元,则信道的数据速率为___________。
最新回复
(
0
)