单选题______ it or not , his discovery has created a stir in scientific circles.ABelieveBTo believeCBelievingDBelieved
单选题
______ it or not , his discovery has created a stir in scientific circles.
A
Believe
B
To believe
C
Believing
D
Believed
参考解析
解析：
相关考题：
－－Do you know the youngest perofessor of our school? He diet last week.Oh______________ A.It's hard to believeB.thanks for your informationC.I like his course
But that he saw it, he ___it.A、could not have believedB、did not believeC、could not believeD、cannot believe
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 quoted by peer scientists.
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.
___________itornot,hisdiscoveryhascreatedastirinscientificcircles.A)BelieveB)TobelieveC)BelievingD)Believed
___________ it or not, his discovery 怎么选择 ___________itornot,hisdiscoveryhascreatedastirinscientificcircles.A)BelieveB)TobelieveC)BelievingD)Believed
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.”33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after itA.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 quoted by peer scientists.
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.”35.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.
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.”31.According to the first paragraph,the process of discovery is characterized by itsA.uncertainty and complexity.B.misconception and deceptiveness.C.logicality and objectivity.D.systematicness and regularity.
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.”32.It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requiresA.strict inspection.B.shared efforts.C.individual wisdom.D.persistent innovation.
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 thatA.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.
The discovery of the strange stone in the deserted valley has spurred series of scientific research.A:encouragedB:endangeredC:endorsedD:enlarged
The dog has always been considered man′s best friend.Always noted for being particularly?faithful in watching over children,he also has his place by the fireside,in the cow pasture,on the?sheep range(放牧区),and beside the hunter in forest.He is easy to train,works hard,and often?performs astonishing feats.And in the frozen polar regions he was once the principal motive power,before being lately displaced by the plane and helicopter.Because he howls or whines in the presence of impending death,the dog was once thought to?have supernatural powers and believed to be capable of seeing gods and ghosts invisible to men.Actually,the.basis for these beliefs lies in the hound′s sensibility to people′s feelings and his superior?hearing ability and sense of smell,which enable him to detect signs hidden from human observation.His record of saving lives is outstanding,for he often gives warning of fire and other dangers not noticed by his master.The dog′s major contribution,however,has been to medical research.Both his diet and his?structure are comparable to those of the human being,and so he has been the subject Of countless?demonstrations and experiments.Open-heart surgery has been made possible largely because of the?dog.But his sacrifice has repaid his own species as well by safeguarding it from rabies(狂犬病),distemper,and other diseases.The dog has always been noted for__________.A.protecting childrenB.assisting shepherdsC.helping huntersD.herding cattle
The dog has always been considered man′s best friend.Always noted for being particularly?faithful in watching over children,he also has his place by the fireside,in the cow pasture,on the?sheep range(放牧区),and beside the hunter in forest.He is easy to train,works hard,and often?performs astonishing feats.And in the frozen polar regions he was once the principal motive power,before being lately displaced by the plane and helicopter.Because he howls or whines in the presence of impending death,the dog was once thought to?have supernatural powers and believed to be capable of seeing gods and ghosts invisible to men.Actually,the.basis for these beliefs lies in the hound′s sensibility to people′s feelings and his superior?hearing ability and sense of smell,which enable him to detect signs hidden from human observation.His record of saving lives is outstanding,for he often gives warning of fire and other dangers not noticed by his master.The dog′s major contribution,however,has been to medical research.Both his diet and his?structure are comparable to those of the human being,and so he has been the subject Of countless?demonstrations and experiments.Open-heart surgery has been made possible largely because of the?dog.But his sacrifice has repaid his own species as well by safeguarding it from rabies(狂犬病),distemper,and other diseases.Dogs are similar to human beings in__________.A.sizeB.structureC.temperamentD.appearance
The words used by the speaker may stir up unfavorable reactions in the listener ______ interfere with his comprehension.A.whoB.asC.whichD.what
单选题Gary Johnson, a major star in track and field, advertises a certain brand of vitamin supplements for aspiring athletes. Alan runs cross country for his university and has decided to start a fitness regimen including the vitamins to improve his event rankings. The statements above, if true, best support which of the following assertions?AThe vitamins have been shown to improve stamina in scientific studies.BAlan’s regimen also includes changes in his workout and diet.CAlan is not satisfied with some aspects of his current athletic performance.DGary Johnson used the vitamins to become a major track and field star.EAlan has fallen victim to the marketing strategies of the company that manufactures the vitamins.
单选题The prime minister had to_______because he was believed to have done something bad against his people.AreleaseBresignCreformDregard
单选题_____AHe has changed his plan.BHe has canceled his trip.CHe is arriving this afternoon.DHe forgot to arrange his trip.
单选题The president believed that the _____ of his personality and of his travels would compete forcefully against the “image-making” publicity tours of his rivals.AgloryBglamourCgloomDglance
单选题The prime minister had to ______ because he was believed to have done something bad against his people.AreleaseBresignCreformDregard
单选题Nobody believed that his excuse for being late was why his car broke down on his way to work.AbelievedBexcuse forCwhyDbroke down
单选题The term “natural law” as it appears in the text refers to _____.Acommon senseBthe result of an inductionCthe order of natureDa scientific discovery