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.

　　在科學研究的理想狀態下，關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，研究者們會用科學的方法來進行他們的工作。但是在每天的科學實踐中，發現通常遵循一條模糊和復雜的路徑。我們的目標是做到客觀，但是我們卻不能逃離我們所處的獨特的生活經驗的環境。之前的知識和興趣會影響我們所經歷的，會影響我們對于經驗意義的思考，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，對于發現的申明應該被當做是科學的原型。這與新近開發的采礦資源比較類似，他們都充滿著可能性。但是將發現的申明變為一個成熟的發現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中的任何人，任何地方和任何時間。客觀的知識不應該是起點而是目標。

　　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.

　　一但一個科學發現變成公開的，那么這個發現就獲得了知識的信任。但是和開發采礦資源不一樣的是，科學協會將控制接下來會發生的事情。在復雜的科研機構的社會結構中，研究者去做出發現;編輯和審稿者通過控制出版過程扮演著看門人的角色;其他的科學家使用新的發現來滿足他們自己的目標;最后，公眾(也包括其他科學家)接受到新的發現和可能相伴隨的技術。當一個發現的聲明最終通過了機構的審查，在有關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現變為一個機構的可信的發現。

　　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：科學工作傾向于關注一些流行科學的某些方面，而這些方面又是被認為是不完全和不正確的。去復制和確認已經被人所知和所信的東西不會有多少回報。科學要做的是去探究新的東西而不是再次探究。不足為奇的是，新發表的重要的，有說服力發現和可信的發現將會被后來的研究者質疑，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常會招致懷疑。諾貝爾獎獲得者，生理學家Albert Azent-Gyorgyi曾經將發現描述為：“觀察每個人觀察的，思考沒有人想到的。”但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，真正新穎的科學發現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，一個科學的發現獲得了信任，這個過程是與哲學家Annette Baier所描述的心靈的共性的觀點是一致的。“我們共同去推理，去質疑，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

　　根據第一段，發現過程的特點是他的：

　　[A] uncertainty and complexity.

　　A.不確定性和復雜性

　　[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.系統性和常規性

　　解析：這是一道細節題：對應原文這一句：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.

　　不斷的創新

　　解析：這是一道細節性的推理題對應這句：This is the credibility process，根據句中的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，主干出現錯誤。

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

　　第三段表明，科學的發現在他 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.

　　被科學的機構檢查之后

　　[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.

　　被科學家同行經常引用之后

　　解析：這個題目是一個細節題。直接對應三段第一句：Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.根據once 知道答案的關鍵在于對于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;根據這句可知becomes public 應該等于 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.被科學的機構檢查之后，這個表述本身的缺陷在于結果不明確，被檢查了有兩種結果：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.

　　科學的發現將經受住質疑

　　[B]discoveries today inspire future research.

　　今天的發現將引起未來的研究

　　[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified.

　　做出發現的努力被證明是合理的

　　[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind.

　　科學的工作需要批判的頭腦

　　解析：本題為細節題，對應文章中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，同學對于critical 批判性的理解可能會有偏差，我們經常講的培養思維能力其實就是培養 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題：

　　[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

　　新穎是科學進步的引擎

　　[B]Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

　　科學發現中的集體審查

　　[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

　　科學中認證(信任)的發展

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

　　在通往科學的大門口對于信任的質疑

　　解析：本題為主題題，根據主題詞可以credibility可以排除A和B,C和D的區別是在范圍上的，文中不只是說了質疑，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

　　2012考研成績查詢免費提醒

　　2012考研復試分數線發布通知