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 its

　　[A] uncertainty and complexity.

　　[B] misconception and deceptiveness.

　　[C] logicality and objectivity.

　　[D] systematicness and regularity.

　　32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires

　　[A] strict inspection.

　　[B]shared efforts.

　　[C] individual wisdom.

　　[D]persistent innovation.

　　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.

　　34. Albert Szent-Györgyi 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.

　　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.

　　31.【答案】A

　　【解析】

　　这篇文章选自The Scientist,文章题目是The Evolution of Credibility。文章第一段第二句话提到“But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route."，即在每天的科学实践中，发现所遵循的规律是模棱两可和复杂的。A项uncertainty and complexity 是对文中ambiguous and complicated的同义替换，所以为正确答案。

　　B项是利用文中最后一句话的干扰“Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound”，这句话是说“有误解和自我欺骗的可能”，从而导致了科学发现的模棱两可和复杂性;C项和D项是受文章第一句话的干扰，但是第一句同时提出只有“在理想中(in the idealized version of ...)，科学发现才能够很客观。

　　32.【答案】B

　　【解析】

　　第二段第二句中提到“But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to...”,其中it指的是将科学发现获得公众可信度的过程。接下来的第四句话具体讲到了这个过程：“through which the individual researcher's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime.”，即要经历从个人到集体的过程，需要每个人共同的努力，故答案为B。

　　33.【答案】B

　　【解析】

　　本段第三句话中提到“Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries”，即“研究者需要在科学团体复杂的社会结构中实现科学发现”，在这句话的后面有一个分号，分号后面的三个短句分别解释了在科学团体中不同身份的人所做的不同工作，如新闻编辑者和评论家需要控制科学发现公开的过程,而另外一些科学家需要同过新的发现来证明已有的发现等。除此之外，最后一句话“transform an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery”即将个人的发现转换为集体可信的科学发现，故答案为B，即科学发现获得公众的可信度需要集体的努力和验证。

　　答案A是利用本段首句设置的干扰，属于主观臆断;答案C为干扰项目，以偏概全;答案D文中没有提及。

　　34.【答案】D

　　【解析】

　　第四段主要讲到了科学发现获得大众可信度的过程中面临的两个矛盾。Albert Szent-Gyorygi的观点主要针对第二个矛盾，即创新本身经常会引起怀疑。同时他认为科学发现需要“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought”，即看到每个人都已经看到的，并想到别人没有想到的。这句话暗示了科学发现的过程需要有评判性思维，即我们应该去探求事物。故答案为D。

　　答案A与本段中讲到的第一个矛盾有关;答案B的过渡推断来自本段最后一句话，这句话的意思是，真正有创新的发现需要时间的验证来得到公众的认可。答案C文中没有提到，属于主观臆断。

　　35.【答案】C

　　【解析】

　　此题考察对全文主旨大意的准确归纳。从整个文章脉络来看，文章第一段指出任何发现最终的目标是使之客观化，然而此过程或多或少会受到不同的生活环境的影响;第二段指出这个过程需要公众共同的努力;第三段具体论述了不同的人在这个过程中需要完成的工作;第四段则提出了使科学发现获得可信度的过程中所遇到的两个矛盾;最后一段用Annette Baier的一句话总结了这个过程。由此可知，C项统领全文，为正确答案。答案A项与原文不符;答案B 是第二段中提到的一部分;而答案D只是对第四段的概括。