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
2015-07-27
33
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/eMOO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Insixteenth-centuryItalyandeighteenth-centuryFrance,waningprosperityandincreasingsocialunrestledtherulingfamilie
Insixteenth-centuryItalyandeighteenth-centuryFrance,waningprosperityandincreasingsocialunrestledtherulingfamilie
Everyculturehasacceptedstandardswhenitcomestopersonalhygiene.ForeignvisitorsshouldthereforebeawareofwhatAmer
Everyculturehasacceptedstandardswhenitcomestopersonalhygiene.ForeignvisitorsshouldthereforebeawareofwhatAmer
EffectiveAssignmentsUsingLibraryandInternetResourcesAwell-designedassignmentcanteachstudentsvaluableresearchskill
EffectiveAssignmentsUsingLibraryandInternetResourcesAwell-designedassignmentcanteachstudentsvaluableresearchskill
A、Roads.B、Streets.C、Lanes.D、Highways.D这个题可以用排除法。Boads,streets,lanesarenotheavysurfaces.只有turnpikesareextensivesurfac
DrivingalongSouthStreet,wheretheLosAngelessprawlmeetssprawlingOrangeCounty,youenterandleaveCerritosthreetimes
随机试题
小李今年毕业后,在一家计算机图书销售公司担任市场部助理,主要的工作职责是为部门经理提供销售信息的分析和汇总。请你根据销售数据报表(“.Excel.xlsx”文件),按照如下要求完成统计和分析工作。根据“订单明细表”工作表中的销售数据,统计隆华书店在2
WindowsXP控制面板提供的实用程序不包括______。
A.利尿通淋,破血通经B.利尿通淋,通气下乳C.利尿通淋,清热解暑D.利尿通淋,杀虫止痒瞿麦的功效是
执行脑死亡标准的伦理意义除外
患者,男性,63岁,因右下肢静脉曲张行静脉剥脱手术,术后护理措施正确的是
甲公司是一家以生产货物为主的生产企业,年不含税销售收入为170万元,可抵扣购进货物的金额为100万元。根据案例,回答以下问题。如果把甲公司分设为两个独立核算的企业,使其销售额分别为90万元和80万元,本年应纳增值税额为()万元。
OutlookExpress这个软件同时集成了“新闻组阅读”和______这两种功能。
中国人民政治协商会议在性质上属于()。
Scientistshavelongspeculatedastotheextentthatinbreedingcontributestothedeclineandeventualextinctionofla
Thenaturalenvironmenthas,ofcourse,alwaysconditionedtechnology.Forexample,thenatureofanenvironment(polar,desert,
最新回复
(
0
)