首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Passage Three (1) Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’
Passage Three (1) Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’
admin
2022-09-27
36
问题
Passage Three
(1) Don’t always believe what scientists and other authorities tell you! Be skeptical! Think critically! That’s what I tell my students, ad nauseam. And some learn the lesson too well.
(2)I want to give my students the benefit of my hard-won knowledge of science’s fallibility. Early in my career, I was a conventional science writer, easily impressed by scientists’ claims. Fields such as physics, neuroscience, genetics and artificial intelligence seemed to be bearing us toward a future in which bionic superhumans would zoom around the cosmos in warp-drive spaceships. Science was an " endless frontier," as physicist Vannevar Bush, a founder of the National Science Foundation, put it in 1945.
(3) Doubt gradually undermined my faith. Scientists and journalists, I realized, often presented the public with an overly optimistic picture of science. By relentlessly touting scientific "advances"—from theories of cosmic creation and the origin of life to the latest treatments for depression and cancer—and by overlooking all the areas in which scientists were spinning their wheels, we made science seem more potent and fast-moving than it really is.
(4) Now, I urge my students to doubt the claims of physicists that they are on the verge of explaining the origin and structure of the cosmos. Some of these optimists favor string and multiverse theories, which cannot be confirmed by any conceivable experiment. This isn’t physics any more, I declare in class, it’s science fiction with equations!
(5)I give the same treatment to theories of consciousness, which attempt to explain how a three-pound lump of tissue—the brain—generates perceptions, thoughts, memories, emotions and self-awareness. Some enthusiasts assert that scientists will soon reverse-engineer the brain so thoroughly that they will be able to build artificial brains much more powerful than our own. Balderdash! I tell my classes (or words to that effect). Scientists have proposed countless theories about how the brain absorbs, stores and processes information, but researchers really have no idea how the brain works. And artificial-intelligence advocates have been promising for decades that robots will soon be as smart as HAL or R2-D2. Why should we believe them now?
(6) Maybe, just maybe, I suggest, fields such as particle physics, cosmology and neuroscience are bumping up against insurmountable limits. The big discoveries that can be made have been made. Who says science has to solve every problem?
(7) Lest my students conclude that I’m some solitary crank, I assign them articles by other skeptics, including a dissection of epidemiology and clinical trials by journalist Gary Taubes in The New York Times. He advises readers to doubt dramatic claims about the benefits of some new drug or diet, especially if the claim is new. "Assume that the first report of an association is incorrect or meaningless," Taubes writes, because it probably is. "So be skeptical. "
(8) To drive this point home, I assign articles by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who has exposed the flimsiness of most peer-reviewed research. In a 2005 study, he concluded that "most published research findings are false. " He and his colleagues contend that "the more extreme, spectacular results (the largest treatment effects, the strongest associations, or the most unusually novel and exciting biological stories) may be preferentially published. " These sorts of dramatic claims are also more likely to be wrong.
(9) The cherry on this ice-cream sundae of doubt is a critique by psychologist Philip Tetlock of expertise in soft sciences, such as politics, history, and economics. In his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment, Tetlock presents the results of his 20-year study of the ability of 284 " experts" in politics and economics to make predictions about current affairs. The experts did worse than random guessing, or "dart-throwing monkeys," as Tetlock puts it. Like Ioannidis, Tetlock found a correlation between the prominence of experts and their fallibility. The more wrong the experts were, the more visible they were in the media. The reason, he conjectures, is that experts who make dramatic claims are more likely to get air time on CNN or column inches in The Washington Post, even though they are likelier to be wrong.
(10) For comic relief, I tell my students about a maze study, cited by Tetlock, that pitted rats against Yale undergraduates. Sixty percent of the time, researchers placed food on the left side of a fork in the maze; otherwise the food was placed randomly. After figuring out that the food was more often on the left side of the fork, the rats turned left every time and so were right 60 percent of the time. Yale students, discerning illusory patterns of left-right placement, guessed right only 52 percent of the time. Yes, the rats beat the Yalies! The smarter you are, the more likely you may be to "discover" patterns in the world that aren’t actually there.
(11) So how do my students respond to my skeptical teaching? Some react with healthy pushback, especially to my suggestion that the era of really big scientific discoveries might be over. " On a scale from toddler knowledge to ultimate enlightenment, man’s understanding of the universe could be anywhere," wrote a student named Matt. " How can a person say with certainty that everything is known or close to being known if it is incomparable to anything?"
(12) Other students embrace skepticism to a degree that dismays me. Cecelia, a biomedical-engineering major, wrote; "I am skeptical of the methods used to collect data on climate change, the analysis of this data, and the predictions made based on this data. " Pondering the lesson that correlation does not equal causation, Steve questioned the foundations of scientific reasoning. "How do we know there is a cause for anything?" he asked.
(13) In a similar vein, some students echoed the claim of radical postmodernists that we can never really know anything for certain, and hence that almost all our current theories will probably be overturned. Just as Aristotle’s physics gave way to Newton’s, which in turn yielded to Einstein’s, so our current theories of physics will surely be replaced by radically different ones.
(14) After one especially doubt-riddled crop of papers, I responded, "Whoa!" (or words to that effect). Science, I lectured sternly, has established many facts about reality beyond a reasonable doubt, embodied by quantum mechanics, general relativity, the theory of evolution, the genetic code. This knowledge has yielded applications—from vaccines to computer chips—that have transformed our world in countless ways. It is precisely because science is such a powerful mode of knowledge, I said, that you must treat new pronouncements skeptically, carefully distinguishing the genuine from the spurious. But you shouldn’t be so skeptical that you deny the possibility of achieving any knowledge at all.
(15) My students listened politely, but I could see the doubt in their eyes. We professors have a duty to teach our students to be skeptical. But we also have to accept that, if we do our jobs well, their skepticism may turn on us.
What does the author think of scientific skepticism?
选项
A、It mustn’t be encouraged among students.
B、It may do great harm to the basis of science.
C、It should be limited in an appropriate degree.
D、It will lead to a new era of big discoveries.
答案
C
解析
态度题。本题涉及作者的主要观点,需结合全文解答。作者在文章开篇之时就说自己一直强调学生要具备科学质疑的精神,随后在第十二段和第十三段援引一些学生的质疑观点,并在第十四段中明确地对过去的科学发现和理论表示了肯定,并指出要以怀疑的态度对待新的言论,要仔细分辨,不能全盘否定,可见,他认为科学质疑应该限制在合理的程度内,故答案为[C]。从文章开头就能看出作者是在鼓励学生要有质疑精神,故排除[A];作者并没有提到质疑会伤害到科学的根本,[B]缺乏原文依据,故排除;作者在第六段中提到科学发现在某些领域可能已经遇到了瓶颈,所以科学大发现时代即将到来不是作者的看法,故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/QyXMFFFM
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
SomeTheoriesofHistoryI.TheproblemsofunderstandinghistoryHistorywithwrittenrecords:therecordsmaybe【T1】______
SomeTheoriesofHistoryI.TheproblemsofunderstandinghistoryHistorywithwrittenrecords:therecordsmaybe【T1】______
EffectiveNote-takingThedifficultyoftakingnotes:Note-takingrequiresahighlevelofabilityduetothe【T1】______ofspoke
EffectiveNote-takingThedifficultyoftakingnotes:Note-takingrequiresahighlevelofabilityduetothe【T1】______ofspoke
EffectiveNote-takingThedifficultyoftakingnotes:Note-takingrequiresahighlevelofabilityduetothe【T1】______ofspoke
WritingExperimentalReportsI.Contentofanexperimentalreport,e.g.—studysubject/area—studypurpose【T1】______【T1】______
WhatCanWeLearnfromArt?I.IntroductionA.Differencebetweengeneralhistoryandarthistory—Focus:—generalhistory:【T1
FiveCommonMistakesinConversationandTheirSolutionsI.NotlisteningA.Problem:mostpeopledon’tlisten—waiteagerlyf
PASSAGETHREEWhydidGooglebidforsomeofNortel’spatents?
PASSAGEONEWhatcanbeinferredfromradicalIslamicpartiesinlocalelections?
随机试题
里格斯将一个没有功能划分,只有一个单一的结构执行许多功能的社会称为“功能扩散的”社会。这种社会的行政模式为“______型行政”。
A.元神之府B.精明之府C.肾之府D.血之府《素问.脉要精微论》称脉为
组成中含有前胡的方剂是
男性,48岁,反复发热40余天。体检:无贫血貌,皮肤黏膜无出血点,无黄染,双颌下、颈旁、腋下淋巴结肿大,无触痛,胸骨无压痛,肝脾肋下未触及;血红蛋白128g/L,白细胞6.8×109/L,血小板118×109/L,外周血涂片白细胞分类正常。最可能的诊断
下列关于骨髓增生异常综合征的叙述,正确的是
下列属于审慎经营类指标的是()。
企业人工成本总预算由()与企业人员工资水平共同决定。
改革开放之初,鉴于社会用人数量的增加、劳动者就业的现实需求,为了缓解企事业单位的人力资源不足,一些地方选择了“用工双轨制”,编制外人员起到了重要的作用。然而,这种本该随着改革深入而退出历史舞台的“过渡机制”却不断扩大,两种体制内人员的福利、社保、待遇的差距
设X1,X2,…,Xn是来自总体X的简单随机样本,X的概率密度为其中λ>0,A>0为已知参数.记求A的矩估计量和最大似然估计量;
假定建立了一个名为Commandl的命令按钮数组,则以下说法中错误的是()。
最新回复
(
0
)