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
2012-12-01
40
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?
Which of the following would be the best title of the test?
选项
A、Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.
B、Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.
C、Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.
D、Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.
答案
C
解析
主旨大意题。本文首先以Montaigne的问题为引子提到科学发现的特点,然后提到将科学发现的申明变为成熟的科学是一个可信性的过程,接着具体说明这一可信性过程是如何进行的,随后指出这一可信性过程中存在的两个悖论,最后引用别人的话对可信性过程进行总结,由此可知,本文主要讲述了科学发现是如何被认证的,即科学可信性的演变,故答案为[C]。本文的主题词汇为credibility,由此可首先排除[A]和[B];文中提到了对可信性过程的质疑,但这只是文中讲述内容的一部分,故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/jJaO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Behindthebrewingwaroverprotectingpatients’recordsinanageofHMOsandonlinemedicine.Technologyisatwo-edgedswor
Ittakesawhile,asyouwalkaroundthestreetsofNantes,acityofhaftamillionpeopleonthebanksoftheLoireRiver,to
Accordingtoreportsinmajornewsoutlets,astudypublishedlastweekincludedastartlingdiscovery:thenation’sJewishpopu
Whatmightdrivingonanautomatedhighwaybelike?Theanswerdependsonwhatkindofsystemisultimatelyadopted.Twodistinc
Extraordinarycreativeactivityhasbeencharacterizedasrevolutionary,flyinginthefaceofwhatisestablishedandproducing
HowtoConquerPublicSpeakingFearⅠ.IntroductionA.Publicspeaking—acommonsourceofstressforeveryoneB.Thetru
IntheUnitedStates,charterschoolsprovidealternativesto"regular"publicschools.Unlikemostpublicschools,chartersdon
TheAmericanFamilyWe’lllearntheAmericanfamiliesfromthefollowingfiveaspects:1.Familystructures1)Immediatefamily
Airpollutionexistsnotonlyoutdoor,butalsoindoor.Ithasgreateffectsonpeople,andtherearemanymeasurestakentocor
由小学到中学,所修习的无非是一些普通的基本知识。就是大学四年,所授课业也还是相当粗浅的学识。世人常称大学为“最高学府”,这名称易滋误解,好像过此以上即无学问可言。大学的研究所才是初步研究学问的所在,在这里做学问也只能算是初涉藩篱,注重的是研究学问的方法与实
随机试题
处于职业生涯早期员工的心理特征。
下列哪项因素可导致脑供血血管收缩
二尖瓣狭窄首先引起()
下列()不属于控制生产性噪声的措施.
建设工程合同管理的特点是()。
根据增值税和消费税法律制度的规定,下列关于增值税和消费税计税依据的表述中,正确的是()。
资料:某物流公司2011年1月有关经营情况如下:(1)提供国内货物运输及装卸服务,取得运输收入35万元,装卸收入4万元,支付(2)承揽国际货物运输业务,取得全程运输收入48万元,支付境外承运单位运费16万元;(3)运营业务中取
下列预算编制方法中,不受历史期经济活动中的不合理因素影响,使预算更贴近预算期经济活动需要的是()。
根据下列资料,回答下列小题:我国2013年全年研究生招生61万人,在学研究生179万人,毕业生51万人。普通本专科招生700万人,在校生2468万人,毕业生639万人。中等职业教育招生698万人,在校生1960万人,毕业生678万人。普通高中招生823万
TCP/IP网络协议主要在OSI模型中进行操作的层次是()。
最新回复
(
0
)