FeiFei-73（lawyer拆贴）

lulu_odin

singdeath

Agree with Lawyer that there is only one conclusion, with all the rest as background. But my understanding of choice A is different from Lawyer's. I think A is saying that nobody bother to repeat the published experiment until many years later. So there is no way to know whether it is fraud or not in those years. So it is necessary to confirm the experiments before publishing. By the way, I'm a life science graduate, with close contact with experiments and results publication. So I'm quite confident in my understanding of choice A.

easttiger

以下是引用小I爱漂漂在2004-12-18 9:24:00的发言：
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!

题目文本的用意在于反对现行于科学界的论文发表审查制度，认为没有必要通过制度化的方式来防止作弊和内容性错误，原文认为基于科学研究的特性，发表出来的科研结果如果是错的，那只要有人按照论文重复一下研究过程，那么真伪自然明了。

所以答案选A是比较清楚的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-2 2:57:00编辑过]

iceza

这题我突然想到一种解释，原文的意思是不是说：以前的方法是先确认，再出版；现在的新方法是先出版了，其他科学家看到之后可以去重复其实验（因为明显confirmation和replication是个对比，我想可能是流程的先后次序对比？？），如果正确就没问题，如果错误，那么也不会对（科学）造成什么损害。a选项weaken的是，重复实验可能会很久才有结果，这么多年没有定论会对（科学）有损害。不知道这么想有什么问题么？请nn们指点。谢谢。btw 看到几位前辈为了结论到底是什么各抒己见，我都晕了，觉得各位说的貌似都有道理啊