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&r
A. For three hundred years there have been people holding a hostile attitude toward science.
B. Scientific experiments in the past three hundred years have produced many valuable items.
C. Some people think three hundred years is not long enough to set back for critical appraisal of scientific method.
D. Modern civilization depends on science so man supports scientific progress unanimously.
我来回答: