[填空题]In the 18th and 19th centuries, universities in western Europe and United States enjoyed increasing academic freedom because of acceptance of the experimental methods of the sciences.

[单项选择]From the 18th through the mid-19th century, whale oil provided light to much of the Western world. At its peak, whaling employed 70,000 people and was the United States’ fifth-largest industry. The U. S. stood as the world’s foremost whale slayer. Producing millions of gallons of oil each year, the industry was widely seen as unassailable, with advocates scoffing at would-be illumination substitutes like. lard oil and camphene. Without whale oil, so the thinking went, the world would slide backward toward darkness.
By today’s standard, of course, slaughtering whales is considered barbaric. Two hundred years ago there was no environmental movement to speak of. But one wonders if the whalers, finding that each year they needed to go farther afield from Nantucket Island to kill massive sea mammals, ever asked themselves: what will happen when we run out of whales Such questions today constitute the cornerstone of the ever-louder logic of sustainability.
Climate alarmists and cam
A. killing whales used to be a necessary evil.
B. whale oil could hardly be replaced by lard oil and camphene.
C. whale-killing triggered the modern environmental movement.
D. people can often find substitutes for exhaustible things through innovation.

[单项选择]

For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every indispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephone-to penicillin, was pieced together to form the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human inter-living, long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go no with it or not. There is an argument.
Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolutions, summoning urgent crowds into the streets any day on the issue of nuclear energy. Give it back, say some of the voices, it doesn’t really wor
A. greatly improved man’s life
B. made profound progress
C. just been at its beginning
D. done too little to human beings

[单项选择]For about three centuries we have been doing science, trying science out, using science for the construction of what we call modern civilization. Every dispensable item of contemporary technology, from canal locks to dial telephones to penicillin, was pieced together from the analysis of data provided by one or another series of scientific experiments. Three hundred years seems a long time for testing a new approach to human inter-living, long enough to settle back for critical appraisal of the scientific method, maybe even long enough to vote on whether to go on with it or not. There is an argument.
Voices have been raised in protest since the beginning, rising in pitch and violence in the nineteenth century during the early stages of the industrial revolution, summoning urgent crowds into the streets any day these days on the issue of nuclear energy. "Give it back," say some of the voices, "It doesn’t really work, we’ve tried it and it doesn’t work. Go back three hundred years a
A. man has overthrown Newton’s laws of physics
B. man has lost many scientific discoveries
C. man has solved a new set of gigantic puzzles
D. man has given up some of the once accepted discoveries