Question

    For several decades, there has been an organized campaign intended to produce distrust in science, funded by those whose interests 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.

Stressing successes isn’t wrong, but for many people it’s not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question “Why trust science?” is that scientists use the so-called scientific method. But what is called the scientific method isn’t what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and at any particular point, scientists can be found doing many different things. False theories sometimes lead to true results, so even if an experiment works, it doesn’t prove that the theory it was designed to test is true.

If there is no specific scientific method, then what is the basis 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. Scientists draft the initial version of a paper and then send it to colleagues for suggestions. Until this point, scientific feedback is typically fairly friendly. But the next step is different: the revised paper is submitted 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 faults. We call this process “peer review” because the reviewers are scientific peers—experts in the same field—but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the responsibility to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper will be printed in the journal and enters the body of “science.”

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 science produces both creativity and stability. New observations, ideas, explanations and attempts to combine competing claims introduce creativity; transformative 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.Scientists stress the success of science in order to ________.

A.promote basic knowledge of science

B.remind people of scientific achievements

C.remove possible doubts about science

D.show their attitude towards the campaign

2.What can we learn about the so-called scientific method?

A.It’s an easy job to prove its existence.

B.It usually agrees with scientists’ ideas.

C.It hardly gets mixed with false theories.

D.It constantly changes and progresses.

3.What can we learn about “peer” review?

A.It seldom gives negative evaluation of a paper.

B.It is usually conducted by unfriendly experts.

C.It aims to perfect the paper to be published.

D.It happens at the beginning of the evaluation process.

4.The underlined sentence in the last paragraph implies that ________.

A.it is not uncommon for science to be overturned

B.scientists are very strong in changing their minds

C.people lose faith in those changeable scientists

D.changes bring creativity and stability to science

Answer

1.C

2.D

3.C

4.D

【解析】

这是一篇议论文。因为科学和科学方法的变动，某些组织企图煽动人们怀疑科学。而文章用科学的成功来进行反驳，并指出科学论文的发表是非常严苛的，而且正是科学的改变为科学带来了创新和相对稳定性。

1.推理判断题。根据第一段中For several decades, there has been an organized campaign intended to produce distrust in science, funded by those whose interests are threatened by the findings of modem science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science.(几十年来，一个有组织的运动旨在让人们怀疑科学，该组织由那些利益受到现代科学威胁的人资助。作为回应，科学家强调科学的成功)可推测，科学家强调科学的成功使为了消除人们对科学的怀疑。故选C。

2.细节理解题。根据文章第二段的Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and at any particular point, scientists can be found doing many different things.(科学是动态的：新的方法被发明，旧的被遗弃，在任何一个特定的时间都可以发现科学家们在做着不同的事情)可知科学的本质是动态的，它是一直变化的，而不是一成不变。D. It constantly changes and progresses.(它在不断变化和进步)符合以上说法，故选D项。

3.细节理解题。根据第三段中We call this process “peer review” because the reviewers are scientific peers—experts in the same field—but they act in the role of a superior who has both the right and the responsibility to find fault. It is only after the reviewers and the editor are satisfied that any problems have been fixed that the paper will be printed in the journal and enters the body of “science.”(我们把这个过程称为“同行评审”，因为这些人都是该领域的专家，但他们现在扮演的角色是有权力和责任发现错误的上级。只有在审稿人满意以及任何问题都被解决了之后论文才会被刊登在期刊上，进入科学杂志)可知，“peer review”的职责是发现科学论文的错误，让它在出版时没有任何问题，也就是旨在让论文在出版前得到完善)，故选C项。

4.句意猜测题。根据最后一段中New observations, ideas, explanations and attempts to combine competing claims introduce creativity; transformative questioning leads to collective decisions and the stability of scientific knowledge.(新的发现，想法，解释和尝试将相互竞争的观点结合起来，带来了创造力；变革性的质疑导致集体决策和科学知识的稳定性)可知，划线句子的意思是：改变促成了科学的创新和相对稳定性。故选D项。