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
45
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/eDdO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
EducationStandardsAreNottheAnswerSen.ChristopherDoddandRep.VernonEhlershaverecentlyproposedabilltocreate
EducationStandardsAreNottheAnswerSen.ChristopherDoddandRep.VernonEhlershaverecentlyproposedabilltocreate
TheGoldenYearsRuleOnekeytoahappyretirementisthemeanstoenjoyit.RogerdeHaanendedupwithmorethanenoughm
London’sleisureindustryhopesforabonanzainJulyandAugust,thankstotheOlympics.Tolurehordesofvisitors,acampaign
SomestudentsatXUniversitygetprofessionalstocleantheirdorms,whichhasarousedwideconcerninoursociety.Isthisag
Stupendouspriceswerepaidinahistoricsaleof19th-and20th-centuryavant-gardepaintingscollectedoveralifetimebyJohn
AccordingtoChitra,______charactersareconsideredtobenotwelldepicted.
TheoriesofHistoryI.Howmuchweknowabouthistory?A.Writtenrecordsexistforonlyafractionofman’stimeB.Theaccurac
Becausehumananatomydoesnotchange(exceptoverlongperiodsoftime),knowledgeacquiredacenturyagowasstillaccurateto
随机试题
证券分析师应当本着对投资者和客户高度负责的精神,切实履行应尽的职业责任,从而向投资人和委托单位提供具有专业见解的意见,这样一来体现了证券分析师的()原则。
我国某进出口公司甲(卖方)与美国某贸易公司乙(买方)以CIF芝加哥条件签订了一份出口5000吨小麦的合同。货物由中国人民保险公司办理了海洋运输货物保险后按时由承运人天建国际海洋运输公司装船运输。因在海上遭遇暴风雨袭击,迟延四个星期到达目的港,并因船员的过失
文化行政管理
图示结构杆BC的轴力NBC是()。
马浑睛虫病的病原体是
防潮层采用金属保护层的环缝和纵缝应()或咬口,缝口应朝()。
()发布施行的国务院《公安机关督察条例》,对督察机构的设置、职责、权限以及督察的方式、程序等作出了明确的规定。
下列关于“缓刑”的说法中,不适当的一项是( )。
法律通常严格限制的结社类型是()。
假设某台计算机的硬盘容量为20GB,内存储器的容最为128MB,那么,硬盘的容量是内存容最的()倍。
最新回复
(
0
)