2. 考研
  3. There are certain subjects in science that have made it into the public spotlight as hot-button political issues. In addition to

There are certain subjects in science that have made it into the public spotlight as hot-button political issues. In addition to

admin2013-09-16  50
问题     There are certain subjects in science that have made it into the public spotlight as hot-button political issues. In addition to climate change, for example, candidates are asked about their positions on evolution and vaccines. Overall, politicians talking more about science is a good thing. But in politics, a particular type of discourse dominates. The world of politics is inherently antagonistic, where one candidate needs to beat another, and the language follows suit. To make their positions easier to digest and remember, politicians tend to dichotomize issues: one candidate adopts the pro-something position, while the other is anti. It’s a world where subtle difference is at best not appreciated and at worst frowned upon, and where changing your mind in the face of new evidence is criticized as a sign of weakness.
    Even if not ideal, all that is understandable for politics. But the problem is that as scientific subjects join those ranks, the antagonistic nature of political discourse has infiltrated elsewhere. Into classrooms. Into labs. Into our everyday discussions with one another. It has become difficult to talk about those topics in science without viewpoints seeming immediately split; there are the enlightened ones and the less enlightened ones, where the goal is for the former to educate the latter. Conversations are loaded. Questions are treated with suspicion. More and more people who care about science seem constantly braced against a presumed opponent with an agenda- an opponent who needs to be taken down. We debate instead of discuss.
    That mentality just doesn’t work in science. Those who are new to a subject are intimidated from asking questions and afraid to disagree. Rather than reason through ideas themselves, they are pressured into accepting conclusions presented as settled and thereby indisputable. But the thing is, nearly everything in science is disputable. The nature of discovery means trying to find the absolute truth—and exposing inconsistencies, thinking through how to reconcile them, and critically analyzing data are all ways to get there. We can’t get very far when curiosity and open inquiry— the hallmarks of good science— are stifled. We are touting the bottom line while discouraging the very steps of the scientific method that get us there.
    What we have to realize is that science and politics have fundamentally different goals, and it’s damaging to conflate them. In politics, the aim is to convince others that you are right. Scientists, ideally, should be seeking objective truths. To do so, they need to be receptive to dissent and open to the possibility of being wrong. Science thrives when diverse ways of thinking are welcome.
    Experts talk as though being skeptical is akin to being "anti-science. " But anti-science is a political idea, not a scientific one. The only way to be anti-science in science is to have a closed mind.
In the author’s opinion, science will develop healthily when scientists______.
选项 A、propose concrete and indisputable conclusions
B、treat scientific conclusions with suspicion or defensiveness
C、are encouraged to challenge current scientific ideas
D、divert themselves from the ambition of finding the absolute truth
答案C
解析 第二段首先指出，“科学对立观”会使得人们不敢就现有结沦提出问题或表示反对，小能运用自己的思维进行推理，而是被迫接受。接着转而指出，科学领域内几乎所有的事情都是有争议的，探索的本质就是努力解决矛盾、寻求绝对真相。如果好奇心和公开质疑被扼杀，我们就无法取得大成就。由此可见，科学能够健康发展的条件是鼓励研究者们的好奇心和公开质疑、挑战的精神，[C]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/U5YRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)