香港城市大学博士西安电子科技大学少数民族骨干计划考研英语真题、笔记、参考书、大纲、录取分数线、报录比

2020年12月9日发(作者：骆成骧)

西安电子科技大学少数民族骨干计划考研英语真题、笔记、

参考书、大纲 、录取分数线、报录比

西安电子科技大学少数民族骨干计划考研英语真题

Text

3

In

the

idea lized

version

of

how

scien ce

is

done,

facts

about

the

world

are

waiting

to

be

observed

and

col lected

by

objective

researchers< /p>

who

use

the

scientific

method

to

carry

out

their

work.

But

in

the

everyday

practice

of

science ,

discovery

frequently

follo ws

an

ambiguous

and

compli cated

route.

We

aim

to

be

objective,

but

we

< p>cannot

escape

the

context

< p>of

our

unique

life

exper ience.

Prior

knowledge

and

interest

influence

what

we< /p>

experience,

what

we

think< /p>

our

experiences

mean,

and

the

subsequent

actions

we

take.

Opportunities

for

< p>
misinterpretation,

error,

and

self-deception

abound.

Consequ ently,

discovery

claims

should

be

thought

of

as

prot oscience.

Similar

to

newly

staked

mining

claims,

they< /p>

are

full

of

potential.

But

it

takes

collective

scrutiny

and

acceptance

to< /p>

transform

a

discovery

clai m

into

a

mature

discovery.

This

is

the

credibili ty

process,

through

which

the

individual

researcher’s

me,< /p>

here,

now

becomes

the< /p>

community’s

anyone,

anywhere,

anytime.

Objective

knowledge

is

the

goal,

not

the< /p>

starting

point.

Once

a

discovery

claim

becomes

p ublic,

the

discoverer

receives

intellectual

credit.

But,

unlike

with

mining

claims,

the

community

takes

control< /p>

of

what

happens

next.< /p>

Within

the

complex

social< /p>

structure

of

the

scientifi c

community,

researchers

mak e

discoveries;

editors

and

reviewers

act

as

gatekeepers

by

controlling

the

publi cation

process;

other

scientists

use

the

new

finding

to

suit

their

own

pur poses;

and

finally,

the

pu blic

(including

other

scientists )

receives

the

new

dis covery

and

possibly

accompanying

technology.

As

a

discover y

claim

works

it

throu gh

the

community,

the

inte raction

and

confrontation

betwee n

shared

and

competing

beliefs

about

the

science

and

the

technology

involved

transforms

an

individual’s

< p>discovery

claim

into

the

community’s

credible

discovery.

Two

paradoxes

exist

thr oughout

this

credibility

process .

First,

scientific

work

< br>tends

to

focus

on

some< /p>

aspect

of

prevailing

Knowl edge

that

is

viewed

as

专注少数民族骨干计划考研辅导

incompl ete

or

incorrect.

Little

r eward

accompanies

duplication

an d

confirmation

of

what

is

already

known

and

beli eved.

The

goal

is

new- search,

not

re-search.

Not

surprisingly,

newly

published

discovery

claims

and

credible

discoveries

that

appear

to

be

important

and

con vincing

will

always

be

ope n

to

challenge

and

pot ential

modification

or

refutatio n

by

future

researchers.

S econd,

novelty

itself

freque ntly

provokes

disbelief.

Nobel

Laureate

and

physiologist

A lbert

Azent-Gyorgyi

once

des cribed

discovery

as

“seeing

< p>what

everybody

has

seen

and

thinking

what

nobody

has

thought.”

But

thinking

what

nobody

else

has

< br>thought

and

telling

others

what

they

have

missed

may

not

change

their

views .

Sometimes

years

are

required

for

truly

novel

d iscovery

claims

to

be

acce pted

and

appreciated.

In

the

end,

credibility

“hap pens”

to

a

discovery

claim

–

a

process

that

corresponds

to

what

philosophe r

Annette

Baier

has

descri bed

as

the

commons

of< /p>

the

mind.

“We

reason

together,

challenge,

revise,

an d

complete

each

other’s

reasoning

and

each

other’s

conceptions

of

reason.”

3 1.

According

to

the

first< /p>

paragraph,

the

process

of< /p>

discovery

is

characterized

by

its

[A]

uncertainty< /p>

and

complexity.

[B]

mi sconception

and

deceptiveness.

< br>[C]

logicality

and

objectivit y.

[D]

systematicness

and

regularity.

32.

It

can

be

inferred

from

Paragraph< /p>

2

that

credibility

process

requires

[A]

strict

i nspection.

[B]shared

efforts.

< p>
[C]

individual

wisdom.

[D]persistent

innovation.

33.

Paragraph

3

shows

that

a

discovery

claim

becomes

credible

after

it

[A]

has

attracted

the

attention

< p>of

the

general

public.

< br>[B]has

been

examined

by

the

scientific

community.

[ C]

has

received

recognition

< p>from

editors

and

reviewers.

[D]has

been

frequently

q uoted

by

peer

scientists.

34.

Albert

Szent-Gy??rgyi

wo uld

most

likely

agree

that

专注少数民族骨干计划考研辅导