2018年10月3日五夜十篇講義

Intheidealizedversionofhowscienceisdone,factsabouttheworldarewaitingtobeobservedandcollectedbyobjectiveresearcherswhousethescientificmethodtocarryouttheirwork.Intheidealized(理想)version（狀態(tài)）ofhowscienceisdone（科研）Version(2007.2) factsabouttheworldarewaitingtobeobservedandcollectedbyobjectivewhousethescientificmethodtocarryouttheirButintheeveryday（日常）practiceofsciencediscoveryfrequentlyfollowsanambiguousandcomplicatedroute.discoverydiscoveryfrequentlyfollowsrouteprocessanambiguousandcomplicated特征theprocessofdiscoveryischaracterizedbyits.（特征？？）[A]uncertaintyandcomplexity[C]logicalityandobjectivity essandcontextuniquelifeexperiences.

Priorknowledgeandinterestsinfluencewhatweexperience,whatwethinkourexperiencesmean,andthesubsequent（隨之，之后）actionswetake.Priorto在…之AinfluenceB,CandDB=whatweC=whatwethinkourexperiencesmeanD=thesubsequentactionswetake.Opportunitiesformisinterpretation（錯誤的解釋）,error,andself-deceptionabound.InterpretOpportunitiesConsequently,discoveryclaimsshouldbethoughtofasprotoscience科學(xué)的Similartonewlystakedminingclaims,theyarefullofpotential. claimsstake寫作：ThestakesinvolvingtheeducationhasbeenthehighestButittakescollectivescrutinyandacceptancetotransformadiscoveryclaimintoamaturediscovery.（IT=totransformadiscoveryclaimintoamaturediscovery）takes(requires)collectivescrutiny（strictinspection）andacceptance.[A]strictinspectionindividualwisdomThisisthecredibilityprocess,throughwhichtheindividualresearcher’sme,here,now esthecommunity’sanyone,anywhere,anytime.This=totransformadiscoveryclaimintoamatureObjectiveknowledgeisthegoal,notthestartingOnceadiscoveryclaim espublic,thediscovererreceivesin But,unlikewithminingclaims,thecommunitytakescontrolofwhat，Withinthecomplexsocialstructureofthescientificcommunity,researchersmakediscoveries;editorsandreviewersactasgatekeepersbycontrollingthepublicationprocess;otherscientistsusethenewfindingtosuit（滿足）theirownpurposes;andfinally,thepublic(includingotherscientists)receivesthenewdiscoveryandpossibly panying（伴隨出現(xiàn)的，相應(yīng)的，隨之產(chǎn)生的），Asadiscoveryclaimworksitswaythroughthecommunity,theinctionandbetweensharedandcompetingbeliefsaboutthescienceandthetechnologyinvolvedtransformsanindividual’sdiscoveryclaimintothecommunity’scrediblediscovery.Asadiscoveryclaimworksitswaythroughthetheinction(互動)and （）betweenshared（相同的）andcompeting（不同的）beliefs（觀念）aboutthescienceandthetechnologyinvolved（相應(yīng)的，涉及到的）transformsanindividual’sdiscoveryclaimintothecommunity’scredibleParagraph3showsthatadiscoveryclaim escredibleafterit.[A]hasattractedtheattentionofthegeneralpublicOnceadiscoveryclaim espublic,thediscovererreceivesin es of eshasbeenexaminedbythescientifichasreceivedrecognitionfromeditorsandreviewers[D]hasbeenfrequentlyquotedbypeerscientistsTwoparadoxesexistthroughoutthiscredibilityFirst,scientificworktendstofocusonsomeaspectofprevailingknowledgethatisviewedas pleteorincorrect.Littlereward paniesduplication（）andconfirmation（確認）ofwhatisalreadyknownandbelieved.Thegoalisnew-search,notre-Notsurprisingly,newlypublisheddiscoveryclaimsandcrediblediscoveriesthatappeartobeimportantandconvincingwillalwaysbeopentochallengeandpotentialmodificationorrefutation（）byfutureresearchers.Second,noveltyitselffrequentlyprovokes NobelLaureateandphysiologistAlbertAzent-Gyorgyioncedescribeddiscoveryas“seeingwhateverybodyhasseenandthinkingwhatnobodyhasAlbertAzent-Gyorgyiwouldmostlikelyagreethat.[A]scientificclaimswillsurvivechallenges[B]discoveriestodayinspirefutureresearch[C]effortstomakediscoveriesarejustified[D]scientificworkcallsforacriticalmindButthinkingwhatnobodyelsehasthoughtandlingotherswhattheyhavemissedmaynotchangetheirviews.Sometimesyearsarerequiredfortrulynoveldiscoveryclaimstobeacceptedandappreciated. Intheend,credibility“happens”toadiscoveryclaim—aprocessthatcorrespondstowhatphilosopherAnnetteBaierhasdescribedasthecommonsofthemind.credibility“happens”toadiscovery Thisisaprocessthatcorrespondsto(相一致whatphilosopherAnnetteBaierhasdescribedasthecommonsofthemind.“Wereasontogether,challenge,revise,andcompleteeachother’s（推理）andeachother’sconceptions（概念）ofWhichofthefollowingwouldbethebesttitleofthetest?[A]NoveltyasanEngineofScientificDevelopment[B]CollectiveScrutinyinScientificDiscovery[C]Evolution（過程（過程=process）ofCredibility ngChallengetoCredibilityattheGatetoAccordingtothefirstparagraph,theprocessofdiscoveryischaracterizedbyits.[A]uncertaintyandcomplexity[C]logicalityandobjectivity essandItcanbeinferredfromParagraph2thatcredibilityprocessrequires.[A]strictinspectionsharedefforts[C]individualwisdomParagraph3showsthatadiscoveryclaim escredibleafterit.[A]hasattractedtheattentionofthegeneralpublichasbeenexaminedbythescientificcommunity[C]hasreceivedrecognitionfromeditorsandreviewers[D]hasbeenfrequentlyquotedbypeerscientistsAlbertAzent-Gyorgyiwouldmostlikelyagreethat.[A]scientificclaimswillsurvivechallenges[B]discoveriestodayinspirefutureresearch[C]effortstomakediscoveriesarejustified[D]scientificworkcallsforacriticalmindWhichofthefollowingwouldbethebesttitleofthetest?[A]NoveltyasanEngineofScientificDevelopment[B]CollectiveScrutinyinScientificDiscovery[C]EvolutionofCredibilityinngScience[D]ChallengetoCredibilityattheGatetoScienceTheU.S.$3millionFundamentalPhysicsPrizeisindeedaninterestingexperiment,asAlexanderPolyakovsaidwhenheacceptedthisyear’sawardinTheU.S.$3millionFundamentalPhysicsPrizeisindeedaninterestingasAlexanderPolyakovwhenheacceptedthisyear’sawardinAnditisfarfromtheonlyoneofitsAsaNewsFeaturearticleinNaturediscusses,astringoflucrativeforresearchershavejoinedtheNobelPrizesinrecentyears.[D]ahandsomerewardfor ephone-number-sizedbankaccountsofInternetentrepreneurs.Thesebenefactors施主，恩公，金主，資助者，出資人havesucceededintheirchosenfields,theysay,andtheywanttousetheirwealthtodrawattentionto（讓人們關(guān)注）thosewhohavesucceededinscience.TheFundamentalPhysicsPrizeisseenas [A]asymboloftheentrepreneurs’wealth[B]apossiblerecementoftheNobelPrizes[C]anexampleofbankers’investments[D]ahandsomerewardforWhat’snottoQuitealot,accordingtoahandfulofscientists（一小撮）quotedintheNewsYoucannotbuyclass,astheoldsayinggoes,andtheseupstartentrepreneurscannotbuytheirprizestheprestigeoftheNobels.Thenewareanexerciseinself-promotion（自我）forthosebehindthem,sayscientists.=這些只是有利于獎項的設(shè)立人。Thecriticsthinkthatthenew willmostbenefit [A]theprofit-orientedscientists[B]the[B]thefoundersof[D]peer-review-ledresearchTheycoulddistorttheachievement-basedsystemofpeer-review-ledTheycouldcementthestatusquo（現(xiàn)狀）ofpeer-reviewedTheydonotfundpeer-reviewedTheyperpetuatethemythoftheloneThegoalsoftheprize-giversseemasscattereds和…一樣的）theSomewanttoshock,otherstodrawpeopleintoscience,ortobetterrewardthosewhohavemadetheircareersinresearch.AsNaturehaspointedoutbefore,therearesomelegitimate（合理的concernsabouthowscienceprizes—bothnewandold—areTheBreakthroughPrizeinLifeSciences,launchedthisyear,takesanunrepresentativeviewofwhatthelifesciencesinclude.（新的的不足?。〣uttheNobelFoundation’slimitofthreerecipientsperprize,eachofwhommuststillbeliving,haslongbeenoutgrownbythecollaborativenatureofmodernresearch—aswillbedemonstratedbytheinevitablerowoverwhoisignoredwhenitcomestoacknowledgingthediscoveryoftheHiggsboson.（老的也有不足!）AhaslongbeenoutgrownbyBoutgrowABA不合時宜了。A=theNobelFoundation’slimitofthreerecipientsperprize,eachofwhommuststillbeliving,B=thecollaborativenatureofmodern[B]the[B]thejointeffortofmodernAs=thecollaborativenatureofmodernresearchBwillbedemonstratedbyCHiggsC=theinevitablerow()overwhoisignoredwhenitcomesHiggsThediscoveryoftheHiggsbosonisatypicalcasewhichinvolves [A]controversiesovertherecipients’status[B]thejointeffortofmodernresearchers[C]legitimateconcernsoverthenewprizes[D]thedemonstrationofresearchfindingsTheNobelswere,ofcourse,themselvessetupbyaveryrichindividualwhohaddecidedwhathewantedtodowithhisownmoney.Time,ratherthanintention,hasgiventhemlegitimacy.[A]Theirendurancehasdonejusticetothem.AccordingtoParagraph4,whichofthefollowingistrueoftheNobels?[A]Theirendurancehasdonejusticetothem.Theirlegitimacyhaslongbeenindispute.[C]Theyarethemostrepresentativehonor.[D]Historyhasnevercastdoubtonthem.Asmuchas(盡管)somescientistsmaycominaboutthenew,twothingsseemclear.First,mostresearcherswouldacceptsuchaprizeiftheywereofferedSecond,itissurelyagoodthingthatthemoneyandattentioncometoscienceratherthangoelsewhere.Itisfairtocriticizeandquestionthemechanism—thatisthecultureofresearch,afterall—butitistheprize-givers’moneytodowithastheyplease.Itiswisetotakesuchgiftswithgratitudeandgrace.[A]acceptabledespitethecriticismTheauthorbelievesthatthenew [A]acceptabledespitethecriticismharmfultothecultureofsubjecttoundesirablechanges[D]unworthyofpublicattention第九篇譯文①TheUS＄3-millionFundamentalPhysicsPriceisindeedaninterestingexperiment,asAlexanderPolyakovsaidwhenheacceptedthisyear’sawardinMarch.正如. 在今年三月接受今年的基礎(chǔ)物理學(xué)獎的時候所說的那樣，金額達到300的基礎(chǔ)物理學(xué)獎的確是個有趣的嘗試。質(zhì)測 初相 ②Anditisfarfromtheonlyoneofits1.farfromisfarfrombeingaworldeconomy③AsaNewsFeaturearticleinNaturediscusses,astringoflucrativeforresearchershavejoinedtheNobelPrizesinrecentyears.入到了獎的行列④Many,liketheFundamentalPhysicsPrize,arefundedfromtheephones-number-sizedbankaccountsofInternetentrepreneurs.像基礎(chǔ)物理學(xué)獎一樣，很多獎項的經(jīng)費來自互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)家的銀行賬戶⑤Thesebenefactorshavesucceededintheirchosenfields,theysay,andtheywanttousetheirwealthtodrawattentiontothosewhohavesucceededinscience.①What’snottolike?Quitealot,accordingtoahandfulofscientistsquotedintheNews有什么不妥呢？就專題的少數(shù)科學(xué)家的話來講，有很多②Youcannotbuyclass,astheoldsayinggoes,andtheseupstartentrepreneurscannotbuytheirprizestheprestigeoftheNobels. 望③Thenewareanexerciseinself-promotionforthosebehindthem,say科學(xué)家們說，這些獎只不過是設(shè)立這些獎的人的自我而已這些獎是背后的企業(yè)家們?yōu)榱俗晕倚麄鞫O(shè)置的他們會以成果為基礎(chǔ)，以評審為引導(dǎo)的體系⑤Theycouldcementthestatusquoofpeer-reviewed他們會使評審研究的現(xiàn)狀不前⑥Theydonotfundpeer-reviewed他們不會資助評審研究⑦TheyperpetuatethemythofthelonePerpetuate:使…mythofthelonegenius①Thegoalsoftheprize-giversseemasscatteredasthecriticism.AseemasscatteredasBABAareasdiversifiedas和批評一樣，獎項設(shè)立者的目標也不盡相同②Somewanttoshock,otherstodrawpeopleintoscience,ortobetterrewardthosewhohavemadetheircareersinresearch.有的人是為了想世界，其他人是為了吸引人才從事科學(xué)研究，有些人想更好地回報那havemadetheircareersinresearch.Hehasmadehiscareerinteaching.①AsNaturehaspointedoutbefore,therearesomelegitimateconcernsabouthowscienceprize—bothnewandold—aredistributed.Legitimacy（，合理性）地位就如自然以往過的那樣，科學(xué)獎項（無論新舊，其分配方式確有值得擔(dān)心處②TheBreakthroughPrizeinLifeSciences,launchedthisyear,takesanviewofwhatthelifescience今年新設(shè)立的生命科學(xué)突破獎在就生命科學(xué)包括哪些（內(nèi)涵）這件事上采用了一種不具備代表性的觀點。③ButtheNobelFoundation’slimitofthreerecipientsperprize,eachofwhommuststillbeliving,haslongbeenoutgrownbythecollaborativenatureofmodernresearch–aswillbedemonstratedbytheinevitablerowoverwhoisignoredwhenitcomestoacknowledgingthediscoveryoftheHiggsboson.AoutgrowB：ABABhasbeenoutgrownbyA但是，獎在設(shè)立時規(guī)定每個獎項最多有三名獲獎?wù)?，而且每個人必須依然活著這種理念早就不適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代研究的大規(guī)模協(xié)作這一事實了。就如談到希玻色子的發(fā)現(xiàn)頒獎時，都會不可避免地爭論誰被忽略了，這點也證明了現(xiàn)代研究的大規(guī)模協(xié)作這一事實。ThecollaborativenatureofmodernresearchwillbedemonstratedbytheinevitablerowoverwhoisignoredwhenitcomestoacknowledgingthediscoveryoftheHiggsboson.acknowledge:承認，表彰，頒獎，認可④TheNobelswere,ofcourse,themselvessetupbyaveryrichindividualwhohaddecidedwhathewantedtodowithhisownmoney.當(dāng)然，獎本身就是一個富人處置財產(chǎn)的結(jié)果⑤Time,ratherthanintention,hasgiventhem時間，而不是初衷成就了獎的地位①Asmuchassomescientistsmaycominaboutthenew ,twothingsseemclear.Asmuchas=muchasMuchasIhatetogo,it'snowor雖然我很討厭去，但也就此一回了雖然一些科學(xué)家對于這些新的獎項有這樣那樣的抱怨，但是有兩個事實是清晰的②First,mostresearcherswouldacceptsuchaprizeiftheywereoffered第一，如果頒獎，大多數(shù)獲獎?wù)叨紩邮塥劉跾econd,itissurelyagoodthingthatthemoneyandattentioncometoscienceratherthangoelsewhere.第二，金錢和關(guān)注匯聚到科學(xué)領(lǐng)域而不是其他領(lǐng)域是件好事④Itisfairtocriticizeandquestionthemechanism-thatisthecultureofresearch,afterall-butitistheprize-givers’moneytodowithastheyplease.⑤Itiswisetotakesuchgiftswithgratitudeand明智的做法是以感恩的心優(yōu)雅地接受獎金第八篇譯文：①Intheidealizedversionofhowscienceisdone,factsabouttheworldarewaitingtobeobservedandcollectedbyobjectiveresearcherswhousethescientificmethodtocarryouttheir②Butintheeverydaypracticeofscience,discoveryfrequentlyfollowsanambiguousandcomplicatedroute.但是在每天的科學(xué)實踐中，發(fā)現(xiàn)通常遵循一條模糊且復(fù)雜的路徑③Weaimtobeobjective,butwecannotescapethecontextofouruniquelife我們的目標是做到客觀，但我們卻無法逃離我們獨特的人生體驗這樣一個環(huán)④Priorknowledgeandinterestinfluencewhatweexperience,whatwethinkourexperiencesmean,andthesubsequentactionswetake.這里充滿 ，錯誤和自 的可能性①Consequently,discoveryclaimsshouldbethoughtofas所以，發(fā)現(xiàn)的應(yīng)該被作為科學(xué)的原型②Similartonewlystakedminingclaims,theyarefullof這些類似于新礦勘探的，都充滿著可能性③Butittakescollectivescrutinyandacceptancetotransformadiscoveryclaimintoamature但是把發(fā)現(xiàn)的變成成發(fā)現(xiàn)需要集體的和接受④Thisisthecredibilityprocess,throughwhichtheindividualresearcher’sme,here,nowesthecommunity’sanyone,anywhere,anytime.⑤Objectiveknowledgeisthegoal,notthestarting客觀的知識不應(yīng)該是起點而是目標①Onceadiscovery espublic,thediscovererreceivesinlectual一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)的變成“public”,這個發(fā)現(xiàn)者就獲得了學(xué)術(shù)的認可②But,unlikewithminingclaims,thecommunitytakescontrolofwhathappens但是和采礦不同的是，科學(xué)界會接管接下來發(fā)生的事情③Withinthecomplexsocialstructureofthescientificcommunity,researchersmakediscoveries;editorsandreviewersactasgatekeepersbycontrollingthepublicationprocess;otherscientistsusethenewfindingtosuittheirownpurposes;andfinally,thepublic（includingotherscientists）receivesthenewdiscoveryandpossibly panyingtechnology.在科學(xué)界復(fù)雜的社會結(jié)構(gòu)中，研究者做出發(fā)現(xiàn)，編輯和審稿人充當(dāng)看門人控制著的過現(xiàn)以及可能隨之而來的新技術(shù)。Note:adiscoveryclaim espublic=editorsandreviewersactasgatekeepersbycontrollingthepublicationprocess;otherscientistsusethenewfindingtosuittheirownpurposes;andfinally,thepublic（includingotherscientists）receivesthenewdiscoveryandpossibly panyingtechnology.(被④Asadiscoveryclaimworksitthroughthecommunity,theinctionandbetweensharedand