更多"[单选题]Text 3 In the idealized versio"的相关试题:
[单选题]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.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 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.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.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.”34.Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi 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.
[不定项选择题]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.
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’sanyone, 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 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.
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 Szent-Gy?rgyi 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.
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.”
Which of the following would be the best title of the test?
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.
[单选题]Text 3 How long is too long for young adults to live at home after college?In a recent survey by TD Ameritrade,teenagers on average said it would become embarrassing to still be living at home at age 26.Young adults aging 20 t0 26-probably because they've already been out in the real world-thought the cutoff should be 28,But 27 percent of those surveyed said they wouldn't be ashamed to be living at home even in their thirties or so.Here's the reality:Nearly half of post-college millennials have moved back home.Wages are stagnant,and many graduates with debt find it's hard to live on their own.Survey participants said their debt is causing them to delay saving for retirement,buying a home,getting married and having children.Twenty percent said the education they received wasn't worth the debt they accumulated."ln many cases,people view young adults moving back home as a sign that they were lazy or not doing things'right,'"said J.J.Kinahan,chief strategist at TD Ameritrade."But many people doing it are being fiscally responsible."I've long advocated for young adults graduating with burdensome debt to move back home if they can.I'll go even further.College graduates should make every effort to find a job in the area where their parents live or another relative or friend is nearby.And in exchange for rent-frce living,they should pledge to extinguish as much of their student-loan debt as they can.You may think that living at home is an improper failure to launch or that it delays the all-important lesson of learning to be independent.But may I suggest we all make an effort to remove the stigma of young adults returning home as a financial embarrassment?It is not,especially if parents allowed or encouraged a student to attend a college that necessitated some heavy borrowing.Soon-to-be graduates often ask me for advice on how to pay off their student loans.Some don't even know how much they owe.But they know it's more than they can comfortably handle on their starting salaries.What they're really asking for is a miracle.They ask hoping there's some get-out-of-debt-free card.Although there is a public service debt forgiveness program for borrowers working for the govemment or a not-for-profit group,the vast majority of borrowers won't get the relief they seek.33.The author suggested that young adults ought to
A.find a job to pay offtheir debts.
B.get firiancial assistance from their family.
C.manage to repay their student-loan debt.
D.be as independent as possible.
[单选题]Text l How,when and where death happens has changed over the past century.As late as 1990 half of deaths worldwide were caused by chronic diseases;in 2015 the share was two-thirds.Most deaths in rich countries follow years of uneven deterioration.Roughly two-thirds happen in a hospital or nursing home.They often come after a ctimax of desperate treatment.Such passionate intervention can be agonising for all concerned.These medicalised deaths do not seem to be what people want.Polls find that most people in good health hope that,when the time comes,they will die at home.They want to die free from pain,at peace,and surrounded by loved ones for whom they are not a burden.But some deaths are unavoidably miserable.Not everyone will be in a condition to toast death's imminence with champagne,as Anton Chekhov did.What people say they will want while they are well may change as the end nears.Dying at home is less appealing if all the medical kit is at the hospital.A treatment that is unbearable in the imagination can seem like the lesser of two evils when the alternative is death.Some patients will want to fight until all hope is lost.But too often patients receive drastic treatment in spite of their dying wishes~by default,when doctors do"everything possible",as they have been trained to,without talking through people's preferences or ensuring that the prediction is clearly understood.The legalisation of doctor-assisted dying has been called for,so that mentally fit,terminally ill patients can be helped to end their lives if that is their wish.But the right to die is just one part of better care at the end of life.The evidence suggests that most people want this option,but that few would,in the end,choose to exercise it.To give people the death they say they want,medicine should take some simple steps.More palliative care is needed.Providing it earlier in the course of advanced cancer alongside the usual treatments turns out not only to reduce suffering,but to prolong life,too.Most doctors enter medicine to help people delay death,not to talk about its inevitability.But talk they must.Medicare,America's public health scheme for the over-65s,has recently started paying doctors for in-depth conversations with terminally ill patients;other national health-care systems,and insurers,should follow.Cost is not an obstacle,since informed,engaged patients will be less likely to want pointless procedures.Fewer doctors may be sued,as poor communication is a common theme in malpractice claims.
We can learn from Paragraph 3 that____
A.dying patients suffer undertreatment
B.doctor-paiient communication is poor
C.doctor-assisted dying has been legalized
D.the right to die is better cure for dying patients
