ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1263|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

费费 73

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-3-29 18:25:00 | 只看该作者

费费 73

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny of replication.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

 

答案是a,怎么分析的?

沙发
发表于 2007-3-29 21:16:00 | 只看该作者
说说我的理解。
本题的结论是:一位科学家的研究成果在出版之前不需要通过正式的论证。理由是:存在一个(非正式的)系统,即其他科学家的科学发现来肯定或者否定该科学家的成果(replication在这里应该是回响,反应的意思)。因此,即使该科学家的工作不是那么严谨也没有关系,因为其他科学家的科学成果会弥补该科学家的错误和疏漏。
A为削弱。因为如果一些科学实验在很多年都没有被质疑,那么即使他们存在问题我们也都无法知道了。
B无关。此题的重点不是将科学成果送到哪里论证,而是是否要进行论证。
C科学家希望自己的成果受到人们关注和反应,因此有压力。无关
D有疏漏的报告比较普遍。无关
E无关
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2007-3-29 22:22:00 | 只看该作者

明白了~~

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-1-9 16:51
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部