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.”33.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.
B.has been examined by the scientific community.
C.has received recognition from editors and reviewers.
D.has been frequently quoted by peer scientists.
参考解析
解析：该题定位于第三段。第二句话“the community takes control of what happens next”是一句总领句，接着本段第三句话中提到“Within the complex social structure of the scientific community”，三个分号具体说明了the community中的researchers，editors and reviewers,other scientists和the public是如何“take control of th
相关考题：
According to the text, online publication is significant in that[A] it provides an easier access to scientific results.[B] it brings huge profits to scientific researchers.[C] it emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge.[D] it facilitates public investment in scientific research.
根据下列材料请回答 51～55 题：BScience is a dominant theme in our culture. Since it touches almost every facet of our life, educated people need at least some acquaintance with its structure and operation. They should also have an understanding of the subculture in which scientists live and the kinds of people they are. An understanding of general characteristics of science as well as specific scientific concepts is easier to attain if one knows something about the things that excite and frustrate the scientist.This book is written for the intelligent student or lay person whose acquaintance with science is superficial ; for the person who has been presented with science as a musty storehouse of dried facts ; for the person who sees the chief objective of science as the production of gadgets ; and for the person who views the scientist as some sort of magician. The book can be used to supplement a course in any science, to accompany any course that attempts to give an understanding of the modern world, or--independent of any course--simply to provide a better understanding of science. We hope this book will lead readers to a broader perspective on scientific attitudes and a more realistic view of what science is, who scientists are, and what they do. It will give them an awareness and understanding of the relationship between science and our culture and an appreciation of the roles science may play in our culture. In addition, readers may learn to appreciate the relationship between scientific views and some of the values and philosophies that are pervasive in our culture.We have tried to present in this book an accurate and up-to-date picture of the scientific community and the people who populate it. That population has in recent years come to comprise more and more women. This increasing role of women in the scientific subculture is not an unique incident but , rather, part of the trend evident in all segments of society as more women enter traditionally male-dominated fields and make significant contributions. In discussing these changes and contributions, however, we are faced with a language that is implicitly sexist, one that uses male nouns or pronouns in referring to unspecified individuals. To offset this built-in bias, we have adopted the policy of using plural nouns and pronouns whenever possible and, when absolutely necessary, alternating he and she . This policy is far from being ideal, but it is at least an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of our language in treating half of the human race equally.We have also tried to make the book entertaining as well as informative. Our approach is usually informal. We feel, as do many other scientists, that we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously. As the reader may observe, we see science as a delightful pastime rather than as a grim and dreary way to earn a living.第 51 题 According to the passage, "scientific subculture" means_________.A． cultural groups that are formed by scientistsB． people whose knowledge of science is very limitedC． the scientific communityD． people who make good contributions to science
The book mentioned in this passage is written for readers who_________.A． are intelligent college students and lay person who do not know much about science.B． are good at producing various gadgets.C． work in a storehouse of dried facts.D． want to have a superficial understanding of science.
According to the text, online publication is significant in thatA．it provides an easier access to scientific results.B．it brings huge profits to scientific researchers.C．it emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge.D．it facilitates public investment in scientific research.
根据下列材料，请回答 31～35 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’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.”第 31 题 According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its[A] uncertainty and complexity.[B] misconception and deceptiveness.[C] logicality and objectivity.[D] systematicness and regularity.
XML代码段是正确的。A．＜!-xml示例-!＞ ＜?xml version＝"1.0" encoding="gb2312"＞ ＜?xml stylessheet type="text/css" href＝"mycss.css"?＞ ＜mytag＞ hello world! ＜/mytag＞B．＜?xml version＝"1.0" encoding="gb2312"＞ ＜?xml stylessheet type="text/ess"href＝"mycss.css"?＞ ＜!-xml示例-!＞ ＜mytag＞ hello world! ＜/mytag＞C．＜?xml version＝"1.0" encoding="gb2312"＞ ＜?xml stylessheet type="text/css"href＝"mycss.css"?＞ ＜!-xml示例-!＞ ＜xmltag＞ hello world! ＜/xmltag＞D．＜!-xml示例-!＞ ＜?xml version＝"1.0" encoding＝"gb2312"＞ ＜?xml stylessheet type="text/css" href＝"mycss.css"?＞ ＜xmltag＞ hello world! ＜/xmltag＞
回答 72 ~ 75 题： E A recent study, while showing a generally positive attitude toward science, also suggests a widespread worry that it may be "running out of control", This idea is dangerous.Science can be a force for evil as well as for good.Its applications can be channeled either way, depending on our decisions. The decisions we make, personally or collectively, will determine the outcomes of science． But here is a real danger.Science is advancing so fast and is so strongly influenced by businesses that we are likely to believe whatever decisions we come to will make little difference.And, rather than fighting for the best possible policies, we may step back and do nothing.Some people go even further.They say that despite the moral and legal objections（反对），whatever is scientifically possible will be done-somewhere, sometime.They believe that science will get out of control in the end.This belief is dangerous too, because it fuels a sense of hopelessness and discourages then from making efforts to build a safer world．In our interconnected world, the lack of agreement in and out of the world of science can lead to the failure to control the use of science.Without a common understanding, the challenges of “controlling" science in this century will be really tough.Take human cloning for example.Despite the general agreement among scientists on its possible huge impact（影响）on traditional moral values, some countries still go ahead with the research and development of its related techniques． The outcomes are hard to predict.Therefore, discussions on how science is applied should be extended far beyond scientific societies.Only through the unties efforts of people with hope, can we be fully safe against the misuse of science and can science best serve mankind in the future第17题：What can we conclude from the recent study?A． People think highly of scienceB． People hold mixed opinions about scienceC． Science is getting dangerously out of controlD． Science is used for both good and bad purposes
共用题干1. Internet use appears to cause a decline in psychological well-being,（因特网的使用使人们的心理健康度下降）according to research at Carnegie Mellon University. Even people who spent just a few hours a week on the Internet experienced more depression and loneliness than those who logged on（进人电脑系统）less frequently, the two-year study showed. And it wasn't that people who were already feeling bad spent more time on the Internet,but that using the Net actually appeared to cause the bad feelings.2.Researchers are puzzling over the results,which were completely contrary to their expectations.They expected that the Net would prove socially healthier than television,since the Net allows users to choose their information and to communicate with others.3.The fact that Internet use reduces time available for family and friends may account for the drop in well-being, researchers hypothesized（假设）.Faceless, bodiless virtual（虚拟的）communication may be less psychologically satisfying than actual conversation,and the relationships formed through it may be shallower. Another possibility is that exposure to the wider world via the Net makes users less satisfied with their lives.4."But it's important to remember this is not about the technology itself;it's about how it is used,"says psychologist Christine Riley of Intel,one of the study's sponsors（发起人）."It really points to the need for considering social factors in terms of how you design applications and services for technology."Exposure to the wider world via the Net _________.A:experience as much of depression as those who neverB:may suffer more depression than those who neverC:after they use the NetD:makes users less satisfied with their livesE:before they use the NetF: the Net would prove socially healthier than television
共用题干1. Internet use appears to cause a decline in psychological well-being,（因特网的使用使人们的心理健康度下降）according to research at Carnegie Mellon University. Even people who spent just a few hours a week on the Internet experienced more depression and loneliness than those who logged on（进人电脑系统）less frequently, the two-year study showed. And it wasn't that people who were already feeling bad spent more time on the Internet,but that using the Net actually appeared to cause the bad feelings.2.Researchers are puzzling over the results,which were completely contrary to their expectations.They expected that the Net would prove socially healthier than television,since the Net allows users to choose their information and to communicate with others.3.The fact that Internet use reduces time available for family and friends may account for the drop in well-being, researchers hypothesized（假设）.Faceless, bodiless virtual（虚拟的）communication may be less psychologically satisfying than actual conversation,and the relationships formed through it may be shallower. Another possibility is that exposure to the wider world via the Net makes users less satisfied with their lives.4."But it's important to remember this is not about the technology itself;it's about how it is used,"says psychologist Christine Riley of Intel,one of the study's sponsors（发起人）."It really points to the need for considering social factors in terms of how you design applications and services for technology."Researchers expected________.A:experience as much of depression as those who neverB:may suffer more depression than those who neverC:after they use the NetD:makes users less satisfied with their livesE:before they use the NetF: the Net would prove socially healthier than television
共用题干Science and TechnologyThere is a difference between science and technology.______(46)Science has to do with discovering the facts and relationships between observable phenomena in nature and with establis- hing theories that serve to organize these facts and relationships;technology has to do with tools, techniques,and procedures for applying the findings of science.______(47)Progress in science excludes the human factor. Scientists,who seek to understand the uni-verse and know the truth within the highest degree of accuracy and certainty,cannot pay attention to their own or other peoples likes or dislikes or to popular ideas about the fitness of things. ______(48)But even an unpleasant truth is more than likely to be useful;besides,we have the choice of refusing to believe it!But hardly so with technology;we do not have the choice of refusing to hear the sound produced by a supersonic（超音速的）aircraft flying overhead; we cannot refuse to breathe polluted air.______(49)The purpose of technology is to serve peo-ple—people in general,not merely some people;and future generations,not merely those who presently wish to gain advantage for themselves._______(50)Many people blame technology itself for widespread pollution,resource de-pletion（枯竭）and even social decay in general—so much so that the promise of technology is “obscured”.That promise is a cleaner and healthier world.If wise applications of science and technology do not lead to a better world,what else will?______(49)A: Another distinction between science and technology has to do with the progress in each.B: Unlike science,progress in technology must be measured in terms of the human factor.C: What scientists discover may shock or anger people—as did Darwin's theory of evolution.D: Science and technology are different.E: We are all familiar with the improper use of technology.F: Science is a method of answering theoretical questions;technology is a method of solving practical problems.
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.”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.
共用题干第三篇Scientific AttitudeWe all know that science plays an important role in our society.However,many people believe that our progress depends on two different aspects of science.The first aspect is the application of the machines,products and systems of knowledge that scientists and technologists develop.The second is the application of the special methods of thought and action that scientists use in their work.What are these special methods of thinking and acting? First of all,it seems that a successful scientist is curious一he wants to find out how and why the universe works.He usually pays attention to problems which he notices have no satisfying explanation,and looks for relationships even if the data available seem to be unconnected.Moreover,he thinks he can improve the existing conditions and enjoys trying to solve the problems which this involves.He is a good observer, accurate, patient and objective（客观的）and uses the facts he observes to the fullest. For example,trained observers obtain a very large amount of information about a star mainly from the accurate analysis of the simple lines that appear in a spectrum（光谱）.He does not accept statements which are not based on the most complete evidence available.He rejects authority as the only basis for truth.Scientists always check statements and make experiments carefully and objectively.Furthermore,he does not readily accept his own idea,since he knows that man is the least reliable of scientific instmments and that a number of factors tend to disturb objective investigation.Lastly,he 15 full of imagination since he often has to look for relationships in data which are not only complex but also frequently incomplete.Furthermore,he needs imagination if he wants to guess how processes work and how events take place.These seem to be some of the ways in which a successful scientist or technologist thinks and acts.What does the passage mainly discuss?A:Application of technology.B:Progress in modem society.C:Scientists,ways of thinking and acting.D:How to become a successful scientist.
共用题干Science and TechnologyThere is a difference between science and technology.______(46)Science has to do with discovering the facts and relationships between observable phenomena in nature and with establishing theories that serve to organize these facts and relationships;technology has to do with tools, techniques,and procedures for applying the findings of science.______(47)Progress in science excludes the human factor. Scientists,who seek to understand the universe and know the truth within the highest degree of accuracy and certainty,cannot pay attention to their own or other peoples likes or dislikes or to popular ideas about the fitness of things.______(48)But even an unpleasant truth is more than likely to be useful;besides,we have the choice of refusing to believe it!But hardly so with technology;we do not have the choice of refusing to hear the sound produced by a supersonic（超音速的）aircraft flying overhead ; we cannot refuse to breathe polluted air.______(49)The purpose of technology is to serve peo- pie-people in general,not merely some people;and future generations,not merely those who presently wish to gain advantage for themselves.______(50)Many people blame technology itself for widespread pollution,resource depletion（枯竭）and even social decay in generalso much so that the promise of technology is "obscured".That promise is a cleaner and healthier world.If wise applications of science and technology do not lead to a better world,what else will?______(47)A: Another distinction between science and technology has to do with the progress in each.B: Unlike science,progress in technology must be measured in terms of the human factor.C: What scientists discover may shock or anger people-as did Darwin's theory of evolution.D: Science and technology are different.E: We are all familiar with the improper use of technology.F: Science is a method of answering theoretical questions;technology is a method of solving practical problems.
共用题干第三篇Scientific AttitudeWe all know that science plays an important role in our society.However,many people believe that our progress depends on two different aspects of science.The first aspect is the application of the machines,products and systems of knowledge that scientists and technologists develop.The second is the application of the special methods of thought and action that scientists use in their work.What are these special methods of thinking and acting? First of all,it seems that a successful scientist is curious一he wants to find out how and why the universe works.He usually pays attention to problems which he notices have no satisfying explanation,and looks for relationships even if the data available seem to be unconnected.Moreover,he thinks he can improve the existing conditions and enjoys trying to solve the problems which this involves.He is a good observer, accurate, patient and objective（客观的）and uses the facts he observes to the fullest. For example,trained observers obtain a very large amount of information about a star mainly from the accurate analysis of the simple lines that appear in a spectrum（光谱）.He does not accept statements which are not based on the most complete evidence available.He rejects authority as the only basis for truth.Scientists always check statements and make experiments carefully and objectively.Furthermore,he does not readily accept his own idea,since he knows that man is the least reliable of scientific instmments and that a number of factors tend to disturb objective investigation.Lastly,he 15 full of imagination since he often has to look for relationships in data which are not only complex but also frequently incomplete.Furthermore,he needs imagination if he wants to guess how processes work and how events take place.These seem to be some of the ways in which a successful scientist or technologist thinks and acts.Which word can be used to describe the data that a good scientist uses?A:completeB:objectiveC:complicatedD:accurate
共用题干第三篇Scientific AttitudeWe all know that science plays an important role in our society.However,many people believe that our progress depends on two different aspects of science.The first aspect is the application of the machines,products and systems of knowledge that scientists and technologists develop.The second is the application of the special methods of thought and action that scientists use in their work.What are these special methods of thinking and acting? First of all,it seems that a successful scientist is curious一he wants to find out how and why the universe works.He usually pays attention to problems which he notices have no satisfying explanation,and looks for relationships even if the data available seem to be unconnected.Moreover,he thinks he can improve the existing conditions and enjoys trying to solve the problems which this involves.He is a good observer, accurate, patient and objective（客观的）and uses the facts he observes to the fullest. For example,trained observers obtain a very large amount of information about a star mainly from the accurate analysis of the simple lines that appear in a spectrum（光谱）.He does not accept statements which are not based on the most complete evidence available.He rejects authority as the only basis for truth.Scientists always check statements and make experiments carefully and objectively.Furthermore,he does not readily accept his own idea,since he knows that man is the least reliable of scientific instmments and that a number of factors tend to disturb objective investigation.Lastly,he 15 full of imagination since he often has to look for relationships in data which are not only complex but also frequently incomplete.Furthermore,he needs imagination if he wants to guess how processes work and how events take place.These seem to be some of the ways in which a successful scientist or technologist thinks and acts.Many people believe that science helps society to progress through________.A:knowledge onlyB:more than one aspectC:technologyD:the use of machines
共用题干第三篇Scientific AttitudeWe all know that science plays an important role in our society.However,many people believe that our progress depends on two different aspects of science.The first aspect is the application of the machines,products and systems of knowledge that scientists and technologists develop.The second is the application of the special methods of thought and action that scientists use in their work.What are these special methods of thinking and acting? First of all,it seems that a successful scientist is curious一he wants to find out how and why the universe works.He usually pays attention to problems which he notices have no satisfying explanation,and looks for relationships even if the data available seem to be unconnected.Moreover,he thinks he can improve the existing conditions and enjoys trying to solve the problems which this involves.He is a good observer, accurate, patient and objective（客观的）and uses the facts he observes to the fullest. For example,trained observers obtain a very large amount of information about a star mainly from the accurate analysis of the simple lines that appear in a spectrum（光谱）.He does not accept statements which are not based on the most complete evidence available.He rejects authority as the only basis for truth.Scientists always check statements and make experiments carefully and objectively.Furthermore,he does not readily accept his own idea,since he knows that man is the least reliable of scientific instmments and that a number of factors tend to disturb objective investigation.Lastly,he 15 full of imagination since he often has to look for relationships in data which are not only complex but also frequently incomplete.Furthermore,he needs imagination if he wants to guess how processes work and how events take place.These seem to be some of the ways in which a successful scientist or technologist thinks and acts.According to the passage,a successful scientist would NOT_________.A:easily believe in unchecked statementsB:easily criticize others,research workC:always use his imagination in workD:always use evidence from observation
单选题The research done by Israeli researchers shows that the initial reaction-the direct transfer of oxygen from blood cells to neurons-.Aoccurred in the tenth of a secondBoccurred after the first-tenth of a secondCcould not be observed by conventional imagingDcould be observed by conventional imaging
单选题This out-of-date teaching method _____.Amust do away withBmust have done away withCmust being done away withDmust be done away with
单选题Which of the following statements about scientists is true?AScientists tend to approach non-scientific problems in a more objective way than common people.BMost scientists believe arts and literature are of little use and hence think little of them.CScientists are against the concept that science means a way of looking at the world partly for professional jealousy.DAll scientists are totally in line with the government of their country.
问答题We live in a society which there is a lot of talk about science, but I would 1．______say that there are not 5 percent of the people who are equipped with schooling,including college, to understand scientific reasoning. We are more ignorant ofscience than people with comparable education in Western Europe. ?2．______There are a lot of kids who know everything about computers — how tobuild them, how to take them apart, and how to write programs for games. So ? ? 3．______if you ask them to explain about the principles of physics that have gone into ? ?4．______creating the computer, you don’t have the faintest idea. ? ? 5．______ The failure to understand science leads to such things like the neglect of ? ?6．______human creative power. It also takes rise to blurring of the distinction between ? 7．______science and technology. Lots of people don’t differ between the two. Science is the 8．______production of new knowledge that can be applied or not, and technology is theapplication of knowledge to the production of some products, machinery or thelike. The two are really very different, and people who have the faculty for onevery seldom have a faculty for the others. ?9．______Science in itself is harmless, more or less. But as soon as it can providetechnology, it is not necessarily harmful. No society has yet learned to forecast 10．______the consequences of new technology, which can be enormous.
单选题In the passage, the author is primarily interested in ______.Asuggesting an alternative to an out-dated research methodBintroducing a new research method that calls an accepted theory into questionCemphasizing the instability of data gathered from the application of a new scientific methodDpresenting a theory and describing a new method to test that theoryEinitiating a debate about a widely accepted theory
单选题According to the passage, “scientific subculture” means _____.Acultural groups that are formed by scientistsBpeople whose knowledge of science is very limitedCthe scientific communityDpeople who make good contribution to science
单选题Which of the following statements about scientists is true?AScientists tend to approach non-scientific problems in a more objective way than common people.BMost scientists believe arts and literature are of little use and hence think little of them.CScientists are against the concept that science means a way of looking at the world partlyDAll scientist are totally in line with the government of their country.
单选题In line 99, natural science, social science and philosophy are mentioned as examples of disciplines that ______.Amutually accepted a single theory of how language is acquiredBquestioned the need to study cognitive science as a separate disciplineCregarded an understanding of language acquisition to be beyond the scope of the scientific methodDdid not put enough resources into the study of language acquisitionEdisagreed about the manner in which human languages should be studied
问答题We live in a society which there is a lot of talk about science, but I would 1．_______say that there are not 5 percent of the people who are equipped with schooling,including college, to understand scientific reasoning. We are more ignorant ofscience as people with comparable education in Western Europe. 2．_______ There are a lot of kids who know everything about computers — how tobuild them, how to take them apart, and bow to write programs for games. So 3．_______if you ask them to explain about the principles of physics that have gone into 4．_______creating the computer, you don’t have the faintest idea. 5．_______ The failure to understand science leads to such things like the neglect of 6．_______human creative power. It also takes rise to blurring of the distinction between 7．_______science and technology. Lots of people don’t differ between the two. Science is the8．_______production of new knowledge that can be applied or not, and technology is theapplication of knowledge to the production of some products, machinery or thelike. The two are really very different, and people who have the faculty for onevery seldom have a faculty for the others. 9．_______ Science in itself is harmless, more or less. But as soon as it can providetechnology, it is not necessarily harmful. No society has yet learned to forecast 10．_______the consequences of new technology, which can be enormous.