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  36
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.
Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
选项 A、The dangers of having a closed mind in science.
B、The downside of a political discouse about science.
C、The true implication of "anti-science".
D、The ultimate goal of science.
答案B
解析 [A]、[C]、[D]选项的误区在于，“封闭思维(have a closed mind)”，“反科学(anti—sci—ence)”“科学的最终目标”均为文中提及内容。但这些均非文章讨论的主体。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/p5YRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)