Question

    For several decades, there has been an extensive and organized campaign intended to generate distrust in science, funded by regulated industries and libertarian think tanks（自由主义智囊团）whose interests and beliefs are threatened by the findings of modern science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things, from the structure of the universe to the relativity of time and space.

Quoting successes isn’t wrong, but for many people it’s not persuasive. What is typically declared to be the scientific method -- develop a supposition, then design an experiment to test it -- isn’t what scientists actually do. Science is active so that new methods get invented and old ones get abandoned. The scientific method doesn’t always work. False theories can produce true results, so even if an experiment works, it doesn’t prove that the theory it was designed to test it true.

If there is no identifiable scientific method, then what is the guarantee for trust in science?

The answer is the methods by which those claims are evaluated. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a long process of examination by fellow scientists. Until this point, scientific feedback is typically fairly friendly. But the next step is different: once the paper is ready, it is presented to a scientific journal, where things get a whole lot tougher. Editors deliberately send scientific papers to people who are not friends or colleagues of the authors, and the job of the reviewer is to find errors or other inadequacies. We call this process “peer review” because the reviewers are scientific peers but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the obligation to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper is accepted for publication and enters the body of “science.”

Does this process ever go wrong? Of course. Scientists are human. But if we look carefully at historical cases where science went wrong, typically there was no agreement reached by all. Some people argue that we should not trust science because scientists are “always changing their minds.” While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist. But the beauty of this scientific process is that it explains what might otherwise appear paradoxical（矛盾的）: that science produces both novelty（新颖性）and stability. New observations, ideas, interpretations introduce novelty: trans-formative questioning leads to collective decisions and the stability of scientific knowledge. Scientists do change their minds in the face of new evidence, but this is a strength of science, not a weakness.

1.Distrust in science has been found because _________.

A.scientists’ citing successes isn’t persuasive for many people to some extent

B.most scientists have tended to lay too much emphasis on the success of science

C.a wide - ranging and organized campaign has been founded in some industries and think tanks

D.someone’s benefits and beliefs are endangered by the findings of modern science

2.Which of the following statements will the author agree with about a scientific method?

A.A scientific method doesn’t necessarily take effect because science is changing.

B.A scientific method is not right because it isn’t what scientists actually do.

C.A successful experiment can guarantee the truthfulness of a claim by a scientific method.

D.True theories can produce false results because the scientific method doesn’t work.

3.What purpose does “peer review” in evaluating a scientific claim mainly serve?

A.The scientific claim can be completely accepted by the reviewers in the same field.

B.The scientific peers can draw right conclusions by finding its faults or other inadequacies.

C.The scientific claim can be published and recognized as true in science.

D.The scientific paper can be successfully submitted to a scientific journal.

4.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that _________.

A.Not all the claims about the falsehood of well-established science lead to its being overturned

B.It is inevitable that science sometimes goes wrong because it appears paradoxical

C.The beauty of science lies in the paradox of being both novel and stable

D.Science is not trustful because scientists always change their minds.

Answer

1.D

2.A

3.C

4.A

【解析】

本文是一篇说明文，介绍了人们对科学的两种观点，即：相信科学和不信任科学。

1.细节理解题。根据第一段中的“For several decades, there has been an extensive and organized campaign intended to generate distrust in science, funded by regulated industries and libertarian think tanks whose interests and beliefs are threatened by the findings of modern science.”可知，几十年来，有一个广泛的、有组织的运动，目的是产生对科学的不信任，由受管制的行业和自由主义智囊团资助，他们的利益和信仰受到现代科学发现的威胁，由此可知，人们发现对科学的不信任是因为某些人的利益和信仰受到现代科学发现的威胁，故D项正确。

2.推理判断题。根据第二段中的“Science is active so that new methods get invented and old ones get abandoned. The scientific method doesn’t always work.”可知，科学是活跃的，新方法被发明，旧方法被抛弃，所以科学的方法并不总是有效的，由此可知，作者可能会同意“科学方法不一定有效，因为科学正在发生变化”这一说法，故A项正确。

3.细节理解题。根据倒数第二段中的“We call this process peer review because the reviewers are scientific peers but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the obligation to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper is accepted for publication and enters the body of science.”可知，我们称这个过程为同行评审，因为评审人员是科学上的同行，但是他们扮演着上级的角色，有权利也有义务找出错误，只有在审稿人和编辑满意之后，任何问题都得到了解决，论文才会被接受发表并进入科学领域，由此可知，在评估一项科学声明时，同行评审的主要目的是这一科学论断可以在科学领域上发表并被认为是正确的，故C项正确。

4.推理判断题。根据最后一段中的“While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist.”可知，虽然真正解决的科学被推翻的例子比有时声称的要少得多，但它们确实存在，由此可知，并非所有关于公认科学的谬误的说法都会导致它被推翻，故A项正确。