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.

　　在科学研究的理想状态下，关于世界的事实正在等待着那些客观的研究者来观察和搜集，研究者们会用科学的方法来进行他们的工作。但是在每天的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊和复杂的路径。我们的目标是做到客观，但是我们却不能逃离我们所处的独特的生活经验的环境。之前的知识和兴趣会影响我们所经历的，会影响我们对于经验意义的思考，以及我们会采取的随后的行动。这里充满着误读，错误和自我欺骗的机会。

　　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，对于发现的申明应该被当做是科学的原型。这与新近开发的采矿资源比较类似，他们都充满着可能性。但是将发现的申明变为一个成熟的发现是需要集体的审查和集体的接受。这个过程就配称之为“信用的过程”，通过这个过程一个单个研究者的“我”在这里就变成了这个社区中的任何人，任何地方和任何时间。客观的知识不应该是起点而是目标。

　　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.

　　一但一个科学发现变成公开的，那么这个发现就获得了知识的信任。但是和开发采矿资源不一样的是，科学协会将控制接下来会发生的事情。在复杂的科研机构的社会结构中，研究者去做出发现;编辑和审稿者通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色;其他的科学家使用新的发现来满足他们自己的目标;最后，公众(也包括其他科学家)接受到新的发现和可能相伴随的技术。当一个发现的声明最终通过了机构的审查，在有关所涉及到的共享的和抵触的信念之间的互动和冲突将把一个人的发现变为一个机构的可信的发现。

　　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.

　　在整个信任的过程中存在着两个悖论，第一：科学工作倾向于关注一些流行科学的某些方面，而这些方面又是被认为是不完全和不正确的。去复制和确认已经被人所知和所信的东西不会有多少回报。科学要做的是去探究新的东西而不是再次探究。不足为奇的是，新发表的重要的，有说服力发现和可信的发现将会被后来的研究者质疑，并带来潜在的修改甚至驳斥。第二个悖论是：新颖的东西本身就经常会招致怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者，生理学家Albert Azent-Gyorgyi曾经将发现描述为：“观察每个人观察的，思考没有人想到的。”但是思考其他人没有想到的并且告诉其他人他们所遗漏的可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候，真正新颖的科学发现被人们所接受和认可将会花好多年的时间。

　　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，一个科学的发现获得了信任，这个过程是与哲学家Annette Baier所描述的心灵的共性的观点是一致的。“我们共同去推理，去质疑，其修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。

　　文章解析和来源：

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

　　这篇文章是一篇对于Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic一书的书评，这本书在 2009年由牛津大学出版社出版，2011年又将推出新的版本。这篇文章的题目就是：The Evolution of Credibility

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

　　根据第一段，发现过程的特点是他的：

　　[A] uncertainty and complexity.

　　A.不确定性和复杂性

　　[B] misconception and deceptiveness.

　　B. 错误的概念和欺骗

　　[C] logicality and objectivity.

　　C.逻辑性和客观性

　　[D] systematicness and regularity.

　　D.系统性和常规性

　　解析：这是一道细节题：对应原文这一句：But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.其中ambiguous and complicated对应答案uncertainty and complexity.其他选项不具备干扰性，只需要定位到But后就可以了。

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

　　从第二段可以推知认证的过程需要：

　　[A] strict inspection.

　　严格的审查

　　[B]shared efforts.

　　共同的努力

　　[C] individual wisdom.

　　个人的智慧

　　[D]persistent innovation.

　　不断的创新

　　解析：这是一道细节性的推理题对应这句：This is the credibility process，根据句中的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对应选项的strict inspection.;本题干扰项为：[B]shared efforts.共同的努力，through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime.来源是这句，但是这个句子中的which 指代的是credibility process，那么句子就改写为：the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime through credibility process. 而题干问的是：credibility process requires什么，主干出现错误。

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

　　第三段表明，科学的发现在他 之后变得可信的：

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

　　吸引到大众的注意之后

　　[B]has been examined by the scientific community.

　　被科学的机构检查之后

　　[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.

　　获得了编辑和审稿者的认同之后

　　[D]has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.

　　被科学家同行经常引用之后

　　解析：这个题目是一个细节题。直接对应三段第一句：Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.根据once 知道答案的关键在于对于becomes public的理解;本句没有线索，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.这句不应该是答案，因为这是在描述becomes public 之后的事情了，我们需要知道的是becomes public 等于什么：editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;根据这句可知becomes public 应该等于 publication; 进而可知答案[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.;这个题目的干扰选项来自B.被科学的机构检查之后，这个表述本身的缺陷在于结果不明确，被检查了有两种结果：接受和不被接受;如果是不被接受那么就不可能becomes public;也就不可能获得credibility .

　　34. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that

　　Albert Szent-Györgyi可能会最赞同下面的那个观点：

　　[A] scientific claims will survive challenges.

　　科学的发现将经受住质疑

　　[B]discoveries today inspire future research.

　　今天的发现将引起未来的研究

　　[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified.

　　做出发现的努力被证明是合理的

　　[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind.

　　科学的工作需要批判的头脑

　　解析：本题为细节题，对应文章中Albert Szent-Györgyi所说的话：seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.可以知道他认为思考很重要，因此答案为D，同学对于critical 批判性的理解可能会有偏差，我们经常讲的培养思维能力其实就是培养 critical mind 的能力。有思考就一定会有批判的，因此这个同义替换是可以接受的。

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

　　下面那个是最好的标题：

　　[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.

　　新颖是科学进步的引擎

　　[B]Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

　　科学发现中的集体审查

　　[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

　　科学中认证(信任)的发展

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

　　在通往科学的大门口对于信任的质疑

　　解析：本题为主题题，根据主题词可以credibility可以排除A和B,C和D的区别是在范围上的，文中不只是说了质疑，还有一系列的事情，所以答案为C。