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
19
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
Formanyofus,petshavecometooccupycriticalrolesinourlives.Thelonelinessandisolationinsomelifestylescanbes
TheStockMarketWhenanewcompanyisorganizedandsharesaresold,itisnothardtodeterminethevalueofeachshare:all
AmericanTranscendentalismattachesgreatimportanceto______.
Ittakesawhile,asyouwalkaroundthestreetsofNantes,acityofhaftamillionpeopleonthebanksoftheLoireRiver,to
ThetradeandinvestmentrelationshipbetweentheEuropeanUnionandtheUnitedStatesisthemostimportantintheworld.Despi
Extraordinarycreativeactivityhasbeencharacterizedasrevolutionary,flyinginthefaceofwhatisestablishedandproducing
WhichofthefollowingisconsideredanAmericanmasterpiece?
A、CheneyandKerryB、BushandKerryC、CheneyandtheheadofDemocraticPartyD、TheheadsofDemocraticandRepublicpartiesC
我认为,生活要求人不断地自我调整以造应现实。人愈能及时地进行调整,他的个人世界便愈有意义。调整绝非易事。我曾感到茫然害怕。但我很幸运。父母和老师在我身上发现了某种东西——可以称之为活下去的潜力吧——而我自己却没有发现。他们激励我誓与失明拼搏到底。我必须学会
Airpollutionexistsnotonlyoutdoor,butalsoindoor.Ithasgreateffectsonpeople,andtherearemanymeasurestakentocor
随机试题
公民、法人或者其他组织对被申请人重新作出的具体行政行为不服,()
下列酶蛋白与辅助因子的论述不正确的是()。
可撤销的民事行为被撤销后,其行为()
以下哪项不是代脉所主病证()
某桥梁施工现场,建设方、监理方、设计方、施工方相关人员正在就某设计变更方案进行讨论,突然发生主体结构垮塌事故,按公路工程质量事故报告制度,事故报告单位应是()。[2004年真题]
电子通关方式不仅加快了通关速度,还有效控制了报检数据不符问题的发生,同时还能有效遏制不法分子伪造、变造通关证单的违法行为。( )
首次发行的公开招股说明书摘要应当早于网上直播推介。()
RupertBrookeRupertBrooke,oneoftheleadingpoetsofhisgeneration,wasrenownedasaromantic,unlikemanyofhiscont
Abudget(预算)isaspendingplan.Itcanhelpyouspendmoneywisely.Itcandothisbycuttingoutwastefulspending.Ofcourse,
A、Fashiondesigner.B、Architect.C、Cityplanner.D、Engineer.B短文开头处提到,在有孩子前,她是一名为政府工作的建筑师。因此答案为B。A“时尚设计师”和C“城市规划者”原文没有提及;D“工程师”是
最新回复
(
0
)