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
69
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.
About the prospect of science, the author may agree with all of the following EXCEPT that
选项
A、humans are on the way to an ultimate understanding of the universe
B、science has never been developing in a pattern of straight climb
C、scientific discoveries may be going through a bottleneck period
D、many basic scientific theories may be overthrown in the future
答案
D
解析
推断题。本题需依据文章整体内容进行解答。[D]“未来许多基本的科学理论可能被颠覆”,这是在第十三段作者认为过于激进的看法,作者在第十四段中也表示出他对既往科学发现的肯定态度,故[D]说法不符合原文,为正确答案。作者在第三段第二、三句指出,科学家和记者展示的科学图景可能过于乐观,忽视了科学盘桓往复的领域,可见,科学发展不是直线上升的,[B]符合原文,故排除;作者在第六段第一、二句中提出,可能在许多重要领域,所能做出的重大发现均已做出,可以说科学发现可能正经历着一个瓶颈期,[C]符合原文,故排除;第十一段第三句提到,人类对于宇宙的了解可能处于懵懂无知和大彻大悟之间,可见,对于大彻大悟这个认识程度,人类还只是在路上,[A]符合原文,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/qGBK777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Toguideyouthroughthepractice,let’sstartwiththebasicquestionsaboutabstract.Firstofall,whatisadescriptiveabst
TypesofLanguageTestingI.Placement—sortnewstudentsinto【T1】______【T1】______—testthestudent’s【T2】______ratherthansp
TypesofLanguageTestingI.Placement—sortnewstudentsinto【T1】______【T1】______—testthestudent’s【T2】______ratherthansp
WhatCanWeLearnfromArt?I.IntroductionA.Differencebetweengeneralhistoryandarthistory—Focus:—generalhistory:【T1
WhatCanWeLearnfromArt?I.IntroductionA.Differencebetweengeneralhistoryandarthistory—Focus:—generalhistory:【T1
FiveCommonMistakesinConversationandTheirSolutionsI.NotlisteningA.Problem:mostpeopledon’tlisten—waiteagerlyf
CulturalDifferencesbetweenEastandWestI.FactorsleadingtotheculturaldifferencesA.Differentculture【T1】______【T1】_
CulturalDifferencesbetweenEastandWestI.FactorsleadingtotheculturaldifferencesA.Differentculture【T1】______【T1】_
PASSAGEFOURWhatisagooddanceaccordingtoGalili’sunderstandingofdance?
PASSAGEONEWhatcanbeinferredfromradicalIslamicpartiesinlocalelections?
随机试题
下列统计指标中,适合采用几何平均数进行平均的是()。
寒饮中阻患者,因寒饮停滞而化热,属于
A、慢性规律性的上腹痛B、无规律性的上腹痛C、右上腹绞痛D、左上腹剧痛E、全腹剧痛消化性溃疡常表现为
患者,女,30岁。常年发际处长疖子,此起彼伏。同时有口渴,溲赤,便秘的症状。该患者应辨证为
下列关于环境噪声污染防治对策的一般原则说法错误的是()。
财政的基本特征包括()。
背景某发电厂安装工程,工程内容有锅炉、汽轮机、发电机、输煤机、水处理和辅机等设备。工程由A施工单位总承包,其中输煤机、水处理和辅机等设备分包给B施工单位安装。因安装质量要求高,A施工单位与建设单位签订合同后编制了该工程的施工组织设计和施工方案。锅炉主
如图,AB为⊙O的直径,直线CD与⊙O相切于E,AD垂直CD于D,BC垂直CD于C,EF垂直AB于F,连接AE,BE.证明:∠FEB=∠CEB;
解释恐龙以及其他种类动物灭绝的一个受到特别注意的理论一直是小行星和地球相撞而造成的全球性灾难。支持这一理论的论据是在世界范围内发现的泥土层里有外星的化学元素,这一泥土层是处于和假定事件同一时期的地质层里。一种新的不同意见认为,这和任何小行星的影响都是无关的
请根据以下各小题的要求设计VisualBasic应用程序(包括界面和代码)。(1)在名称为Form1,标题为“图书”的窗体上画1个名称为Cmb1的下拉式组合框。下拉列表中有“少儿读物”“传记文学”和“武侠小说”3个表项内容。运行后的窗体如错误!
最新回复
(
0
)