FeiFei-73（lawyer拆贴）

小I爱漂漂

FeiFei-73
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 scientists, 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.

这个题不是太明白后面两句话和前面的联系的意思,所以也搞不明白为什么要选A??请指教!

lawyer_1

1。后面的话将它当作背景知识，只是说明用复制科学试验的方法代替官方方法并没什麽坏处。

2。其实原文只有一个观点，即结论，并没什直接证据。A直接WEAKEN结论，指出这种replicated(复制)的方法确认科学试验的作法不适应一种情况：刚做该实验时是经得起考验的，但时间长啦，比如很多年后，再REPLICATED，如果disconfirm该实验，这种disconfirm不能否定该实验。

chelseayang

我对A的理解和LAWYER有些不同:

A WEAKEN，指出REPLICATION OF EXPERIMENT这种方法有缺陷:

一些实验结果出来之后，可能在好长时间内没有人去做REPLICATION来验证, 如果存在CARELESS REPORTING和FRAUD的话, 那错误就存在很长时间却没有人提出挑战, 这怎么能说它会HARMLESS呢? 至少在一定时间内是HARMFUL的

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-20 0:18:29编辑过]

lawyer_1

原文的结论是：REPLICATION的方法可以代替官方确认。注重的是能否用replication确认该试验对与不对。至于确认前该试验是否有害和结论无关。因为它注重的是该试验本身。

小I爱漂漂

谢谢两位版主的解释.lawyer版主是从There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists 这里看出有一种replication方法跟官方验证方法不用的吗?

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-21 4:47:13编辑过]

forestsky

agree with chelseayang. the argument is about how to validate thescientific work. If it goes unchanlenged for a long time, it weaks theaugument. The answer is still A.

forestsky

the logic is as follows:  no reason for official conform, becausethere is a system of examination from peer scientists. So, even thework is bad, it's not harmful once other find out. To weaken theargument, A maintains that the examination from peer scientists may belate for a long time, hence, the official conform is still in need.Q.E.D.

hedonism555

Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientists, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. -------- conclusion.

There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. ---------- premise.

It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results. --------------------reasoning.

A   它因削弱。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-21 8:33:38编辑过]

roric

顶~~~没懂

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 scientists, 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. ）

括号中的是新system的工作机理吗？

yboo

my understanding is:

Comclusion:
There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published.


Reason:
Because there is such a Replication system that will tell whether the original work has loophole in it, and blah blah.

"A" directly points out a possibility that could seriously prohibit the Replication system from working - a gap of years.

btw, to roric: ya, i think so.