阅读原文

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 action we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

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.

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 reviews act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and completing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

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 physiology Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has been and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and tell others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

In the end, credibility “happen” 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.”

 

 

题目

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 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 quotes by peer scientist.

 

34. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi 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.

 

 

全文翻译

在理想的版本中科学是怎样被做的，世界的事实等待着客观的科学家应用他们的工作方法去发现和收集。但是在每天的科学实践中，发现常常跟随一个模糊不清的难懂的路线。我们的目标是客观的，但是我们逃脱不了我们唯一的生活实践背景。先前经验和兴趣影响着我们的实践，影响着我们思考我们的实践意味着什么，影响我们之后采取的行动。误解，犯错，自欺欺人的机会就多了。

因此，发现声明应该被认为是原始科学。好比于新的采矿声明，充满了各种可能。但它需要共同的审查和接受才能转变一个发现声明为一个成熟的发现。 这是一个取信过程，通过将个人研究的我、这儿、现在变成公众的任何人、任何地方、任何时间。客观知识是目标而不是起点。

一旦一个发现声明变成公共的，发现者将会收到知识分子的信任。但是不同于采矿声明，科学界控制下一步发生什么。在这个复杂的科学群体的社会结构中，研究者做出发现，编辑和评论者充当控制出版过程的信息传递者，其他的科学家使用新得技术并且做出可能伴随的技术。当发现声明通过业界认可的时候，对相关科技的共同信念与矛盾就会互动与对抗，这样就会把个人的发现声明转换业界的可信发现。

两个悖论存在于整个的取信过程。第一，科学家的工作往往关注的是被认为不完整和不正确的盛行知识的方面。证实已经被认识和信服的理论很难获得附带的收获。目标是新的研究，而不是重新 研究。似乎重要且令人信服的新的出版的发现声明和取信过程常常被未来的科学家公开挑战和潜在修改、驳斥，这一点也不令人惊讶。第二，新颖的东西本身就常常会引起人们的怀疑。诺贝尔获得者兼生理学Albert Szent-Gyorgyi曾经描述发现是“看每个人看到的，思考没人思考的东西”。但是思考没有人思考的东西并且告诉他们错失了什么可能不会改变他们的想法。新颖的发现声明真正的被接受和被欣赏需要一些年的时间。

最后，发现会有可信度—这个过程和哲学家Annette Baier在《共同的大脑》中的描述是一致的。“我们一起推理、挑战、修正、完善相互的推理和其他人的推理概念。”

 

 

逐句翻译

第一段：

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.

在理想的版本中科学是怎样被做的，世界的事实等待着客观的科学家应用他们的工作方法去发现和收集。

 

But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous(模糊不清的) and complicated(难懂的) route.

但是在每天的科学实践中，发现常常跟随一个模糊不清的难懂的路线。

 

We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context (背景) of our unique life experience.

我们的目标是客观的，但是我们逃脱不了我们唯一的生活实践背景。

 

Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent (随后的，之后的) action we take.

先前经验和兴趣影响着我们的实践，影响着我们思考我们的实践意味着什么，影响我们之后采取的行动。

 

Opportunities for misinterpretation (误解), error, and self-deception(自欺欺人的) abound(富于；充满).

误解，犯错，自欺欺人的机会就多了。

 

第二段：

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience (原始科学).

因此，发现声明应该被认为是原始科学。

 

Similar to newly staked mining (采矿) claims, they are full of potential.

好比于新的采矿声明，充满了各种可能。

 

But it takes collective(共同的；集合的) scrutiny(详细审查；监视) and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.

但它需要共同的审查和接受才能转变一个发现声明为一个成熟的发现。

 

This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime.

这是一个取信过程，通过将个人研究的我、这儿、现在变成公众的任何人、任何地方、任何时间。

 

Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

客观知识是目标而不是起点。

 

第三段：

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.

一旦一个发现声明变成公共的，发现者将会收到知识分子的信任。

 

But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next.

但是不同于采矿声明，科学界控制下一步发生什么。

 

Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviews(综述；评论) act as gatekeepers(门卫；信息传递者) by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new discovery and possibly accompanying(伴随；陪伴的) technology.

在这个复杂的科学群体的社会结构中，研究者做出发现，编辑和评论者充当控制出版过程的信息传递者，其他的科学家使用新得技术并且做出可能伴随的技术。

 

As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction(互动) and confrontation(对抗) between shared and completing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

当发现声明通过业界认可的时候，对相关科技的共同信念与矛盾就会互动与对抗，这样就会把个人的发现声明转换业界的可信发现。

 

第四段：

Two paradoxes(悖论，反论) exist throughout this credibility process.

两个悖论存在于整个的取信过程。

 

 First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing(流行的，一般的；盛行) knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.

第一，科学家的工作往往关注的是被认为不完整和不正确的盛行知识的方面。

 

Little reward accompanies duplication(复制；副本；成倍) and confirmation(确认；证实) of what is already known and believed.

证实已经被认识和信服的理论很难获得附带的收获。

 

The goal is new-search, not re-search.

目标是新的研究，而不是重新 研究。

 

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(修改，修正) or refutation(反驳，驳斥) by future researchers.

似乎重要且令人信服的新的出版的发现声明和取信过程常常被未来的科学家公开挑战和潜在修改、驳斥，这一点也不令人惊讶。

 

Second, novelty(新奇) itself frequently provokes(引起，激怒，煽动) disbelief.

第二，新颖的东西本身就常常会引起人们的怀疑。

 

Nobel Laureate(戴桂冠的；荣誉的；得奖者) and physiology(生理学) Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has been and thinking what nobody has thought.”

诺贝尔获得者兼生理学Albert Szent-Gyorgyi曾经描述发现是“看每个人看到的，思考没人思考的东西”。

 

But thinking what nobody else has thought and tell others what they have missed may not change their views.

但是思考没有人思考的东西并且告诉他们错失了什么可能不会改变他们的想法。

 

Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

新颖的发现声明真正的被接受和被欣赏需要一些年的时间。

 

第五段：

In the end, credibility “happen” to a discovery claim-a process that corresponds(一致) to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.

最后，发现会有可信度—这个过程和哲学家Annette Baier在《共同的大脑》中的描述是一致的。

 

“We reason together, challenge, revise(修正；复习), and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”

“我们一起推理、挑战、修正、完善相互的推理和其他人的推理概念。”

 

题目翻译

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

(A) uncertainty and complexity

(B) misconception (误解；错觉；错误的想法) and deceptiveness(虚伪)

(C) logicality and objectivity

(D) systematicness(系统性) and regularity(规整的)

 

31.根据第一段，发现的过程有_______的特点。

(A)不确定性和复杂性

(B)错误的想法和虚伪

(C)合乎逻辑的和客观的

(D)系统的和规整的

 

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

(A) strict inspection(视察，检查)

(B) shared efforts

(C) individual wisdom

(D) persistent(坚持的；持久稳固的) innovation(创新，革新；新方法)

 

32.从第二段可以推断出取信过程要求______。

(A)严格的检查

(B)共享努力

(C)个人智慧

(D)长久的革新

 

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(检查过的) by the scientific community(团队，社区).

(C) has received recognition(承认；重视；公认) from editors and reviewers(评论者).

(D) has been frequently quotes(引用) by peer scientist.

 

33.第三段揭示发现声明在_____之后变得可信。

(A)吸引了公众的注意力

(B)已经被科学团队检查过。

(C)获得编辑和评论者的公认

(D)被同行科学家频繁的引用

 

34. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi 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.

 

34.Albert Szent-Gyorgyi最有可能同意______。

(A)科学声明将存在挑战

(B)今天的发现激励着未来的研究

(C)努力做出发现是合理的

(D)科学工作要求批判性思维

 

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

(A) Novelty as an Engine(引擎；发动机) of Scientific Development.

(B) Collective Scrutiny(详细审查；监视) in Scientific Discovery.

(C) Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

(D) Challenge to Credibility at the Gate(大门) to Science.

 

35.下面哪一个是文章最好的标题？

(A)新颖是科学发展的发动机

(B)科学发现的共同审查

(C)科学取信的演变

(D)通向科学大学的可信性挑战