2. 考研
  3. From The Tipping Point to Nudge, the rise of pop-social science has been a noticeable feature of the past decade in publishing.

From The Tipping Point to Nudge, the rise of pop-social science has been a noticeable feature of the past decade in publishing.

admin2014-06-25  33
问题     From The Tipping Point to Nudge, the rise of pop-social science has been a noticeable feature of the past decade in publishing. Not everyone is impressed. A professor of education who is an expert in policy evaluation lamented the fact that politicians tend to get their facts from popular social science books containing inaccuracies.
    I think the professor was right to worry about ministerial exposure to authors such as Malcolm Glad-well and Dan Ariely and even Tim Harford— but not for quite the right reasons. The problem is not that such authors are inaccurate. Gladwell has plenty of critics, but I find him a careful reporter. And I am told Tim Harford is all but infallible.
    Yet infallibility is not enough. It’s perfectly possible for an author to do nothing but weave together credible, peer-reviewed research and yet produce a highly partial view of reality. Different pieces of research invariably point in different directions. Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational is full of examples of irrational behaviour. My own Logic of Life is full of examples of rational behaviour.
    If Ariely describes a rainy day and I describe a sunny one, we are not really contradicting each other. We each offer our spin, but it’s really about whether most people expect sunshine or rain: Dan says that it’s rainier than we tend to think, while I say the sun shines more often than anyone would credit. A serious review of this metaphorical evidence would count up the rainy days and the sunny ones.
    For real policy questions, such reviews exist. They are called systemic reviews. They should be the first port of call for anyone wanting to understand what works. But they are not exactly bestsellers in airport bookshops.
    Quite apart from the fact that nobody wants to read all the evidence, there is a deep problem with the way evidence is selected throughout academia. Even a studiously impartial literature review will be biased towards published results. Many findings are never published because they just aren’t very intriguing. Alas, boring or disappointing evidence is still evidence. It is dangerous to discard it.
    The systemic review tries to track down unpublished research as well as what makes it into the journals. A less careful review will often be biased towards results that are interesting. A peer-reviewed article presents a single result, while a popular social-science book will highlight a series of results that tell a tale. The final selection mechanism is the reader, who will half remember some findings and forget the rest.
    Those of us who tell ourselves we are curious about the world are actually swimming in "evidence" that has been filtered again and again in favour of interestingness. It’s a heady and perhaps toxic drink, but we shouldn’t blame popularisers alone for our choice to dive in.
It can be inferred that the lack of systemic reviews should be mainly blamed on______.
选项 A、the publishing system
B、the policy system
C、social science authors
D、scientific researchers
答案A
解析 第六段分析了“缺乏系统性评估”的原因。第一句在提及其显而易见的原因“没有人愿意阅读所有的证据”之后，指出了其重要原因“学术界选择证据的方式”。随后指出其具体所指：只有那引人入胜的研究才易于被出版；很多研究(即便有价值，也会)仅仅因为无趣或令人失望而得不到发表。段末两句作者表达了对这种出版体制的批判态度：无趣的证据也是证据，绝不应该将其随便抛弃。由此可知作者认为，现行出版体制是造成缺乏系统性评估的重要原因，[A]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/fyMRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)