Text 3

　　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 experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

　　在科學(xué)研究的理想狀態(tài)下，關(guān)于世界的事實正在等待著那些客觀的研究者來觀察和搜集，研究者們會用科學(xué)的方法來進行他們的工作。但是在每天的科學(xué)實踐中，發(fā)現(xiàn)通常遵循一條模糊和復(fù)雜的路徑。我們的目標(biāo)是做到客觀，但是我們卻不能逃離我們所處的獨特的生活經(jīng)驗的環(huán)境。之前的知識和興趣會影響我們所經(jīng)歷的，會影響我們對于經(jīng)驗意義的思考，以及我們會采取的隨后的行動。這里充滿著誤讀，錯誤和自我欺騙的機會。

　　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.

　　所以，對于發(fā)現(xiàn)的申明應(yīng)該被當(dāng)做是科學(xué)的原型。這與新近開發(fā)的采礦資源比較類似，他們都充滿著可能性。但是將發(fā)現(xiàn)的申明變?yōu)橐粋�成熟的發(fā)現(xiàn)是需要集體的審查和集體的接受。這個過程就配稱之為“信用的過程”，通過這個過程一個單個研究者的“我”在這里就變成了這個社區(qū)中的任何人，任何地方和任何時間�？陀^的知識不應(yīng)該是起點而是目標(biāo)。

　　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 it 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.

　　一但一個科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)變成公開的，那么這個發(fā)現(xiàn)就獲得了知識的信任。但是和開發(fā)采礦資源不一樣的是，科學(xué)協(xié)會將控制接下來會發(fā)生的事情。在復(fù)雜的科研機構(gòu)的社會結(jié)構(gòu)中，研究者去做出發(fā)現(xiàn);編輯和審稿者通過控制出版過程扮演著看門人的角色;其他的科學(xué)家使用新的發(fā)現(xiàn)來滿足他們自己的目標(biāo);最后，公眾(也包括其他科學(xué)家)接受到新的發(fā)現(xiàn)和可能相伴隨的技術(shù)。當(dāng)一個發(fā)現(xiàn)的聲明最終通過了機構(gòu)的審查，在有關(guān)所涉及到的共享的和抵觸的信念之間的互動和沖突將把一個人的發(fā)現(xiàn)變?yōu)橐粋�機構(gòu)的可信的發(fā)現(xiàn)。

　　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 Azent-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.

　　在整個信任的過程中存在著兩個悖論，第一：科學(xué)工作傾向于關(guān)注一些流行科學(xué)的某些方面，而這些方面又是被認為是不完全和不正確的。去復(fù)制和確認已經(jīng)被人所知和所信的東西不會有多少回報�？茖W(xué)要做的是去探究新的東西而不是再次探究。不足為奇的是，新發(fā)表的重要的，有說服力發(fā)現(xiàn)和可信的發(fā)現(xiàn)將會被后來的研究者質(zhì)疑，并帶來潛在的修改甚至駁斥。第二個悖論是：新穎的東西本身就經(jīng)常會招致懷疑。諾貝爾獎獲得者，生理學(xué)家Albert Azent-Gyorgyi曾經(jīng)將發(fā)現(xiàn)描述為：“觀察每個人觀察的，思考沒有人想到的�！钡�是思考其他人沒有想到的并且告訴其他人他們所遺漏的可能并不會改變這些人的觀點。有時候，真正新穎的科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)被人們所接受和認可將會花好多年的時間。

　　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.”

　　最后，一個科學(xué)的發(fā)現(xiàn)獲得了信任，這個過程是與哲學(xué)家Annette Baier所描述的心靈的共性的觀點是一致的�！拔覀児餐�去推理，去質(zhì)疑，其修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。

　　文章解析和來源：

　　http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/physical_sciences/message/5041?threaded=1&var=1

　　這篇文章是一篇對于Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic一書的書評，這本書在 2009年由牛津大學(xué)出版社出版，2011年又將推出新的版本。這篇文章的題目就是：The Evolution of Credibility

　　31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its

　　根據(jù)第一段，發(fā)現(xiàn)過程的特點是他的：

　　[A] uncertainty and complexity.

　　A.不確定性和復(fù)雜性

　　[B] misconception and deceptiveness.

　　B. 錯誤的概念和欺騙

　　[C] logicality and objectivity.

　　C.邏輯性和客觀性

　　[D] systematicness and regularity.

　　D.系統(tǒng)性和常規(guī)性

　　解析：這是一道細節(jié)題：對應(yīng)原文這一句：But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.其中ambiguous and complicated對應(yīng)答案uncertainty and complexity.其他選項不具備干擾性，只需要定位到But后就可以了。

　　32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires

　　從第二段可以推知認證的過程需要：

　　[A] strict inspection.

　　嚴格的審查

　　[B]shared efforts.

　　共同的努力

　　[C] individual wisdom.

　　個人的智慧

　　[D]persistent innovation.

　　不斷的創(chuàng)新

　　解析：這是一道細節(jié)性的推理題對應(yīng)這句：This is the credibility process，根據(jù)句中的This回到前一句：But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. 句中：it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance對應(yīng)選項的strict inspection.;本題干擾項為：[B]shared efforts.共同的努力，through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime.來源是這句，但是這個句子中的which 指代的是credibility process，那么句子就改寫為：the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime through credibility process. 而題干問的是：credibility process requires什么，主干出現(xiàn)錯誤。

　　33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it

　　第三段表明，科學(xué)的發(fā)現(xiàn)在他 之后變得可信的：

　　[A] has attracted the attention of the general public.

　　吸引到大眾的注意之后

　　[B]has been examined by the scientific community.

　　被科學(xué)的機構(gòu)檢查之后

　　[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.

　　獲得了編輯和審稿者的認同之后

　　[D]has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.

　　被科學(xué)家同行經(jīng)常引用之后

　　解析：這個題目是一個細節(jié)題。直接對應(yīng)三段第一句：Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.根據(jù)once 知道答案的關(guān)鍵在于對于becomes public的理解;本句沒有線索，但由于是首句所以答案指向段落后面的句子：But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next.這句不應(yīng)該是答案，因為這是在描述becomes public 之后的事情了，我們需要知道的是becomes public 等于什么：editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;根據(jù)這句可知becomes public 應(yīng)該等于 publication; 進而可知答案[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.;這個題目的干擾選項來自B.被科學(xué)的機構(gòu)檢查之后，這個表述本身的缺陷在于結(jié)果不明確，被檢查了有兩種結(jié)果：接受和不被接受;如果是不被接受那么就不可能becomes public;也就不可能獲得credibility .

　　34. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that

　　Albert Szent-Györgyi可能會最贊同下面的那個觀點：

　　[A] scientific claims will survive challenges.

　　科學(xué)的發(fā)現(xiàn)將經(jīng)受住質(zhì)疑

　　[B]discoveries today inspire future research.

　　今天的發(fā)現(xiàn)將引起未來的研究

　　[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified.

　　做出發(fā)現(xiàn)的努力被證明是合理的

　　[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind.

　　科學(xué)的工作需要批判的頭腦

　　解析：本題為細節(jié)題，對應(yīng)文章中Albert Szent-Györgyi所說的話：seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.可以知道他認為思考很重要，因此答案為D，同學(xué)對于critical 批判性的理解可能會有偏差，我們經(jīng)常講的培養(yǎng)思維能力其實就是培養(yǎng) critical mind 的能力。有思考就一定會有批判的，因此這個同義替換是可以接受的。

　　35.Which of the following would be the best title of the test?

　　下面那個是最好的標(biāo)題：

　　[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

　　新穎是科學(xué)進步的引擎

　　[B]Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

　　科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)中的集體審查

　　[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

　　科學(xué)中認證(信任)的發(fā)展

　　[D]Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

　　在通往科學(xué)的大門口對于信任的質(zhì)疑

　　解析：本題為主題題，根據(jù)主題詞可以credibility可以排除A和B,C和D的區(qū)別是在范圍上的，文中不只是說了質(zhì)疑，還有一系列的事情，所以答案為C。

　　2012考研真題及答案解析專題 

　　2012考研真題在線交流專區(qū)

　　2012考研成績查詢免費提醒

　　2012考研復(fù)試分數(shù)線發(fā)布通知