$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$Text 3
$\quad$$\quad$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.
$\quad$$\quad$在科学是如何开展的理想化版本中,关于世界的事实正等待着客观的研究者们用科学的方法去观察和收集。但在日常的科学实践中,发现往往遵循一个模糊和复杂的路线。我们追求着客观,但我们不能逃脱我们独一无二的人生经历的影响。先前知识和兴趣影响我们的经验,我们认为我们的经验意味着什么,以及我们采取的后续行动。误解、错误和自欺欺人的机会比比皆是。
$\quad$$\quad$Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective 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.
$\quad$$\quad$因此,发现主张应该被认为是原始科学。类似于新近入股的矿业权益,它们充满了潜力。但要将一项发现声明转变为一项成熟的发现,需要集体审查和接受。这是一个可信的过程,通过这个过程,个人研究者的“我”,在这里,现在变成了社区的“任何人”,“任何地方”,“任何时间”。客观的知识是目标,而不是起点。
$\quad$$\quad$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, the 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.
$\quad$$\quad$一旦一项发现得到公开,发现者就可获得知识信用。但是,不像一些矿产权益,由公司全权掌控接下来要发生的事情。在科学界复杂的社会结构中,研究人员做出发现;编辑和审稿人通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色;其他科学家利用这一新发现来达到自己的目的;最后,公众(包括其他科学家)接受新发现和可能伴随的技术。当一项发现声明在社区中传播时,有关所涉及的科学和技术的共同或相互竞争的信念之间的互动和对抗,将个人的发现声明转化为社区的可信发现。
$\quad$$\quad$Two paradoxes exist throughout 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 re-search. 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-Györgyi 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.
$\quad$$\quad$在整个可信性过程中存在两个悖论。首先,科学工作倾向于关注流行知识的某些方面,这些方面被认为是不完整或不正确的。重复和确认已经知道和相信的东西是没有什么回报的。目标是新搜索,而不是重复搜索。毫不奇怪,新发表的发现声明和可信的发现,似乎是重要的和令人信服的,总是开放的挑战,潜在的修改或驳斥未来的研究人员。第二,新奇本身往往会引起怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者和生理学家Albert Szent-Györgyi曾经把发现描述为“看到每个人看到的,思考没有人想到的。”但是,想别人没有想过的,告诉别人他们错过了什么,可能不会改变他们的观点。有时候,真正新颖的发现需要数年的时间才能被接受和欣赏。
$\quad$$\quad$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.”
$\quad$$\quad$最后,一项发现的可信度“发生了”——这一过程与哲学家安妮特·拜尔(Annette Baier)所描述的“心灵的共有物”是一致的。“我们一起推理,挑战,修改,完善彼此的推理和彼此的理性概念。”
31 According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its __. __
[A] uncertainty and complexity
不确定性和复杂性 正确
[B] misconception and deceptiveness
错误的概念和欺骗性
[C] logicality and objectivity
逻辑性和客观性
[D] systematicness and regularity
系统性和规律性
答案定位:{But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. }
32 It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires _.
[A] strict inspection
严格的审查
[B] shared efforts
共同的努力 正确,段落主旨
[C] individual wisdom
个体的智慧
[D] persistent innovation
不断的创新
答案定位:{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.}
33 Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it _.
[A] has attracted the attention of the general public
吸引到了群众的注意
[B] has been examined by the scientific community
受到了科学社区的鉴定 正确 段落主旨、社区认同
[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers
得到了编辑和评论家的认可
[D] has been frequently quoted by peer scientists
经常受到科学家的质疑
答案定位:{As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the 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. }
34 Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that ______.
[A] scientific claims will survive challenges
新的科学主张将经受挑战
[B] discoveries today inspire future research
今日的研究启发着未来的研究
[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified
努力做出发现是合理的
[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind
科学工作需要批判精神 对
答案定位:{“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. }
35 Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development
创新是科学发展的动力
[B] Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery
科学发现中的集体审查
[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science
科学公信力的演变 正确 符合全文中心思想,其他三个都是段落主旨
[D] Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science
科学之门对可信度的挑战
Tilbur AK CSP
RP ++
RP ++