2012年考研英语一阅读 Text 3 原文翻译及答案解析

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.

在科学工作的理想化版本中，关于世界的客观事实等待着使用科学方法进行工作的客观研究人员来观察和收集。但在科学的日常实践中，发现往往遵循一条模糊而复杂的路径。我们力求客观，但无法摆脱我们独特生活经历的背景。先前的知识和兴趣影响我们的经历、我们对经历意义的理解以及我们随后采取的行动。误解、错误和自我欺骗的机会比比皆是。

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.

因此，发现主张应被视为前科学。类似于新确立的采矿权，它们充满潜力。但将发现主张转化为成熟发现需要集体审查和接受。这就是可信度过程，通过它，个别研究者的“我、这里、现在”变成了社区的“任何人、任何地方、任何时间”。客观知识是目标，而非起点。

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.

一旦发现主张公开，发现者将获得知识上的认可。但与采矿权不同的是，社区掌控接下来的发展。在科学界复杂的社会结构中，研究人员做出发现；编辑和审稿人通过控制出版过程充当守门人；其他科学家利用新发现来满足自己的目的；最后，公众（包括其他科学家）接受新发现及可能附带的技术。随着发现主张在社区中推进，关于所涉科学和技术的共享与竞争信念之间的互动和对抗，将个人的发现主张转化为社区的可信发现。

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 Szent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as "seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

在整个可信度过程中存在两个悖论。首先，科学工作倾向于关注被视作不完整或错误的盛行知识的某些方面。复制和确认已知和已相信的东西几乎得不到回报。目标是新探索，而非重复研究。不足为奇，新发表的发现主张和看似重要且令人信服的可信发现，总是对未来的研究人员开放，接受挑战以及潜在的修改或反驳。其次，新颖性本身常常引发怀疑。诺贝尔奖得主、生理学家阿尔伯特·圣-捷尔吉曾将发现描述为“看到每个人所看到的，思考没人所想过的。”但思考没人想过的事情并告诉别人他们错过了什么，可能不会改变他们的观点。有时，真正新颖的发现主张需要多年才能被接受和欣赏。

In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim - a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other's reasoning and each other's conceptions ofreason."

最终，可信度“降临”到发现主张上——这一过程对应于哲学家安妮特·拜尔所描述的思想的公地。“我们共同推理，挑战、修正并完善彼此的推理和彼此的理性概念。”

-7-

-7-