|
Text 3
①In 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. ②But in the everyday practice of
science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. ③We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our
unique life experience. ④Prior knowledge and interest
influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the
subsequent actions we take. ⑤Opportunities for
misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
①Consequently,
discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. ②Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. ③But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a
discovery claim into a mature discovery. ④This is the credibility process, through which the individual
researcher’s me, here, now becomes
the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. ⑤Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
①Once a
discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. ②But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what
happens next. ③Within 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. ④As 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.
①Two
paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. ②First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing
Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. ③Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is
already known and believed. ④The goal is new-search, not re-search. ⑤Not 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. ⑥Second,
novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. ⑦Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi once described
discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has
thought.” ⑧But thinking what nobody else
has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their
views. ⑨Sometimes years are required
for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
①In 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. ②“We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s
reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”
31. According to the first paragraph, the
process of discovery is characterized by its
[A] uncertainty and complexity.
[B] misconception and deceptiveness.
[C] logicality and objectivity.
[D] systematicness and regularity.
32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2
that the credibility process requires
[A] strict inspection.
[B] shared efforts.
[C] individual wisdom.
[D] persistent innovation.
33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim
becomes credible after it
[A] has attracted the attention of the
general public.
[B] has been examined by the scientific
community.
[C] has received recognition from editors
and reviewers.
[D] has been frequently quoted by peer
scientists.
34. Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely
agree that
[A] scientific claims will survive
challenges.
[B] discoveries today inspire future
research.
[C] efforts to make discoveries are
justified.
[D] scientific work calls for a critical
mind.
35.Which of the following would be the best
title of the text?
[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
Text 331.A32.B33.B34.D35.C
|