ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1587|回复: 4
打印 上一主题 下一主题

feifei73

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2009-2-28 14:41:00 | 只看该作者

feifei73

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 findings, 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 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.

  

请问这题为什么选A?后半截就看不大明白其中的逻辑关系了。

沙发
发表于 2009-2-28 20:49:00 | 只看该作者
Argument: 科学家的工作结果可以由其他科学家通过是否能复制结果来验证其有效性,没有什么危害,所以没有必要在发布其结果前进行官方正式确认。

A.科学家的实验结果在被其他人复制前可以不被人质疑存在很长时间 -- 直接削弱premises
B.加强
C.加强
D.无关
E.无关或者可以理解为有弱加强作用
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2009-2-28 23:03:00 | 只看该作者
thx!
地板
发表于 2009-8-5 04:33:00 | 只看该作者
D
5#
发表于 2009-11-23 19:22:41 | 只看该作者
system不会harmful,因为在其他科学家引用的时候,会去考证,就会发现实验的错误或者造假。
削弱:实验需要在和多年后才会被科学家引用,这段时间都是unchallenged的。
这就提供了一个会造成harmful的一个条件!
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, 2025-2-21 08:56
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