考研英语二(阅读)模拟试卷85附答案解析

考研英语二(阅读)模拟试卷85

完形填空

阅读理解

翻译

1. The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today. The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.

\

《科学》杂志总主编玛西娅-麦克纳特今天宣布,该杂志将在同行评审流程中新加入一个统计检查环节。该政策效仿了其他期刊的类似做法,这是考虑到了一个人们广泛忧虑的现象:许多已发表的研究成果由于数据分析存在基本错误而导致实验结果不能重现。

“读者必须要对刊登在本刊的结论有信心,”麦克纳特在一篇社论中写道。与美国统计协会相配合,该期刊已委任七名专家成立一个统计审核编辑小组(SBoRE)。需要额外审核的作者原稿将被打上标签,这可以由杂志内部编辑、编辑审核组或是外部同行人员操作。这类稿件将由SBORE寻找外部统计人员进行审核。

在被问及是否有任何特定的论文推动了该项变革,麦克纳特说:“人们非常担心统计和数据分析在科研中的应用问题,此外,《科学》杂志也努力增加其刊登的研究结果的可重现性,两者共同作用促成了‘统计小组’的创立。”

乔瓦尼-帕玛强尼,哈佛大学公共卫生学院的一位生物统计学家,也是SBORE的成员。他说,他期望评审小组能“重点扮演咨询建议的角色。”他同意加盟,是因为他“发现创建SBoRE背后的远见是新颖独特的,并很有可能产生持久的影响。这种影响不仅会通过《科学》杂志的出版本身来实现,而且很有希望能通过更大的一群出版机构来实现,因为他们也许会效仿《科学》杂志的做法。”

约翰-伊恩尼蒂斯,一位钻研研究方法论的内科医生,称该政策是“非常值得欢迎的一步”但“姗姗来迟”。“大多数期刊在统计审查方面很薄弱.而这有损刊物的质量。我认为,对如今大多数科技论文来说,统计审核比专家评审更重要,”他说。但他指出,生物医学期刊,如《内科医学年鉴》《美国医学协会杂志》和《柳叶刀》杂志,都非常重视统计审核。

按细胞生物学家大卫-沃克斯的说法,专业的科学家们都应该知道如何分析数据,但刊登的研究成果中的统计误差非常普遍,令人担忧。他在2012年写到,研究人员应该提高自身的水平,而期刊也应该采取更加强硬的路线,“要让内行的统计学评审人员以及那些能够验证流程的编辑们参与”。沃克斯说,《科学》杂志把一些论文交给统计人员处理的主意“有一定的好处,但缺陷在于,它依赖于编辑审核小组首先确定‘需要审核的论文’”。

解析:

2. The US$3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.

What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.

The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research. As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes — both new and old — are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research — as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of Course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.

As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism — that is the culture of research, after all — but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

奖金高达300万美元的“基础物理学奖”确实是一个有趣的实验,今年三月,亚历山大-波利亚科夫在接受该奖项时如是说。这样的奖项并不唯一,类似的还有不少。正如《自然》杂志“新闻特写”专栏所述,近年来涌现了一批奖金丰厚的新奖项,这些奖项和诺贝尔奖一样都是为研究人员设立的。很多奖项的资金,跟基础物理学奖一样,都来自互联网企业家那些拥有巨额存款的银行账户。这些奖项捐助人说,他们在各自的领域取得了成功,因此他们想用自己的财富来吸引人们注意那些在科学上同样取得成就的人。

有什么理由不喜欢这些新奖项呢?用“新闻特写”专栏引用的几个科学家的话来回答——很多。正如老话所说,有钱难买贵族身。这些新贵企业家同样不能为自己设立的奖项买来像诺贝尔奖一样的声望。科学家们认为这些新奖项只是幕后的奖项设立者用来自我宣传的工具。他们会扭曲同行评价主导型研究的基于成就的体系。他们会僵化同行评价型研究的现状。他们不为同行评价型研究提供资金。他们使“孤独的天才”这个神话得以长存。

奖项设立者的目的看起来似乎和批评声一样多样化。一些设立者想要震惊世人,其他人则希望吸引人们进入科学的殿堂或更好地奖赏那些在科研中已创下了一番事业的人。

正如《自然》杂志曾经指出的那样,一些关于新老科学奖项如何颁发的担忧是合理的。今年设立的“生命科学突破奖”在生命科学的范畴上就采取了非常规的观点。然而,诺贝尔基金会限制每个奖项的受领者为3人以内,且每个人都必须在世,这早已不适用于具有合作性质的现代研究。这一点会在以下事例中得到证明:当要奖励发现希格斯玻色子(Higgs boson)的一群科学家时,就不可避免地会争论“谁被忽略了”这个问题。当然,诺贝尔诸奖本身也是由已然想好如何处置自己金钱的非常富有的人设立的。这些奖项的合理性由时间而非奖项设立者的意图所赋予。

尽管一些科学家可能会抱怨这些新奖项,但有两点是显然的。第一,如果获奖,大部分研究人员都会接受。第二,财力和关注都投入到科学界而非其他地方,这确实是一件好事。批评和质疑这一机制是合理的——毕竟这就是科研文化——但这是奖项设立者的钱,用于何种用途完全取决于他们的意愿。明智的做法是心怀感激,有风度地接受这些奖金。

解析:

3. Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely — though by no means uniformly — glowingly positive. Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fulfilment and opportunity for all.

Now Utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu and to climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.

But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years — so why shouldn’t we? Take a broader look at our species’ place in the u-niverse, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Look up Homo sapiens in the \

一直到数十年之前,尽管有例外,但我们对未来的想象大都是非常积极的,尽管不是所有人都一致这么认为。科学技术会治愈人类所有的疾病,人人生活美满,机会均等。

现在乌托邦已经不流行了,因为我们对自己所面临的一系列威胁有了更深的认识,包括从小行星撞击到流感,再到气候变化。这些甚至使你认为人类几乎没有可展望的未来。

但这样的沮丧放错了地方。化石记录表明,许多物种已经历经几百万年之久——那我们为什么不能?把视野放宽一些,看看我们这个物种在宇宙中的位置,我们就可以清楚地看到:我们有绝佳的条件,就算活不上几十万年,也能够继续活上几万年。在国际自然保护联盟(IUCN)濒危物种的“红色名录”里查找“智人(译注:即指现代人类)”,你会读到这样的文字:“被列为‘无危物种’,因为其分布极其广泛,适应性强,目前数量正在增加,且没有重大威胁会导致其总体数量下降。”

那么,我们遥远的未来会给我们带来什么呢?越来越多的研究者和机构都在认真思考这个问题。例如,恒今基金会的旗舰项目是设计一个数千年后还在记时的机械钟。

或许是存心的,但思考如此长远的时间跨度比思考近期未来更为容易。现今科技可能出现的进步及其带来的社会影响相当复杂,令人目眩,也许最好是将我们能想象到的各种可能留给科幻小说作者和未来学家去探究。这是我们创办《Arc》杂志的原因之一,这本新的出版物专注于近期将来。

但是,把目光放长远一点,我们可以对非常多的事情作出准确的预测。正如经常发生的那样,了解过去是预测未来的关键:我们现在已经对塑造地球历史和我们物种的长期模式有了足够的认识,可以有根据地预测我们的子孙后代会处于什么情形。

这一长远的视角使得我们对于前景的悲观看法似乎更像是短暂的突发奇想。固然,未来并不全是光明的。但我们现在有足够的知识,可以减少许多曾经威胁早期人类生存的风险,以及改善子孙后代的命运。

解析:

4. In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyoergyi once described discovery as \

在科学研究的理想状态下,有关世界的事实真相有待客观的研究人员通过科学的科研方法加以观察和收集。然而,在日常的科学实践中,发现通常遵循一条模糊而复杂的路径。虽然我们力求客观,但却无法摆脱我们所处的独特的生活经验背景。先前的知识和兴趣会影响我们的阅历及对阅历的理解,并影响我们随后所采取的行动。误解、错误与自我欺骗随处可见。

因此,有关新发现的声明应被视为准科学。它们和新近探明的采矿声明一样颇具潜力。但若要把某个发现声明转换为成熟的发现,则需要研究人员集体进行仔细的调查并令之为大家所接受。这是一个授信的过程,研究人员从中由个体的“我”“这里”和“现在”变成了集体中的“任何人”“任何地方”和“任何时间”。客观知识并非起点,而是最终目标。

一旦一项发现声明公诸于众,发现者便获得了知识上的信用。但有别于采矿声明(发现者可对所探明的矿产拥有开采权)。随后发生的一切是由科学界共同掌控的。科学界具有错综复杂的社会结构,在这当中,研究人员做出新发现;编辑与评审员充当把关人,控制着发现声明的整个发表过程;其他科学家则根据各自的需要运用这个新发现;最后,公众(包括其他科学家在内)接受了该新发现和可能随之而来的技术。人们对相关的科学技术通常持有共同或是对立的信念,随着整个发现声明逐渐成功地进入科学界,这些信念之间的互动与冲突就会把个人的发现声明转化成整个科学界认可的发现。

在这个证明可信性的过程中始终存在着两种对立面。首先,科学研究工作倾向于关注被视为不完整或不正确的流行知识的某些方面。复制并证实那些众所周知且为人所信的东西是没有回报的。科学研究工作的目标是新探索,而不是重新探索。不足为奇的是,那些看起来重要而有说服力的新发表的发现声明和可信发现总是要迎接挑战和面对可能的修正,甚至是未来研究人员的驳斥。其次,新颖事物本身就经常会引起人们的质疑。诺贝尔奖得主、生理学家Albert Azent-Gyoergyi曾经将发现描述为“观察人人都看到的,思考没人曾想到的。”但思考人们所未想到的东西并告诉他们遗漏了什么,这可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候,需要花费好多年的时间才能使真正新颖的发现声明被人们所接受和认可。

最后,一个发现声明获得了信任,这个过程类似于哲学家安尼特-拜尔所描述的“心灵的共性”。“我们共同去推理,去质疑,去修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。”

解析:

作文

资源下载《考研英语二(阅读)模拟试卷85附答案解析.doc》 文档下载价格为10下载币,请先
将本套试题Word文档或文章下载到电脑,方便收藏和打印
资源下载
《考研英语二(阅读)模拟试卷85附答案解析.doc》
试题含答案和解析word文档下载价格:10 下载币
《考研英语二(阅读)模拟试卷85附答案解析.doc》
试题含答案和解析word文档VIP优惠:免费
将本套试题Word文档或文章下载到电脑,方便收藏和打印
0

评论0

没有账号? 注册  忘记密码?