Part A: Reading Comprehension
Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
Text 3
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 Szent-Györgyi 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.
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 of reason.”
31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its
32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that the credibility process requires
33. Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it
34. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that
35. Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
全文翻译
在科学如何运作的理想化版本中，关于世界的事实等待着客观的研究者去观察和收集，这些研究者使用科学方法来开展工作。但在日常科学实践中，发现往往遵循着一条模糊而复杂的路径。我们力求客观，但我们无法逃脱我们独特生活经历的背景。先前的知识和兴趣影响着我们经历什么，我们认为我们的经历意味着什么，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。
因此，发现声明应当被认为是原始科学。类似于新标定的采矿权，它们充满了潜力。但需要集体的审查和接受才能将一项发现声明转化为成熟的发现。这就是可信性过程，通过这个过程，个体研究者的"我、此时、此地"变成了科学共同体的"任何人、任何地方、任何时候"。客观知识是目标，而非起点。
一旦发现声明公开，发现者就获得了知识上的荣誉。但与采矿权不同的是，科学共同体掌控着接下来发生的事情。在科学界复杂的社会结构中，研究者做出发现；编辑和评审者通过控制发表过程来充当守门人；其他科学家利用新发现来服务于自己的目的；最后，公众（包括其他科学家）接收到新发现以及可能随之而来的技术。当一项发现声明在科学共同体中逐步推进时，共享的和相互竞争的关于科学和技术的信念之间的互动和对抗，将个人的发现声明转化为科学共同体的可信发现。
在整个可信性过程中存在两个悖论。第一，科学工作往往集中在被视为不完整或不正确的现有知识的某些方面。重复和确认已知和已相信的东西几乎得不到回报。目标是新搜索，而不是再搜索。毫不奇怪，新发表的发现声明和看似重要且有说服力的可信发现，将永远对后来研究者的挑战、潜在修改或反驳敞开大门。第二，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"看到每个人都看到的东西，而思考没有人想到过的东西"。但思考别人没有想过的东西，并告诉别人他们错过了什么，可能不会改变他们的观点。有时需要多年时间，真正新颖的发现声明才能被接受和认可。
最终，可信性"发生"在一项发现声明上——这个过程对应于哲学家安妮特·贝尔所描述的心灵的公共领域。"我们一起推理，互相挑战、修正，并完善彼此的推理和彼此的理性概念。"
Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)
试题精解
31. [A] uncertainty and complexity.
【解析】细节题。第一段第二句指出：But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route（但在科学的日常实践中，发现往往遵循一条模棱两可且复杂的路径）。选项 A 中的 uncertainty（不确定性）对应 ambiguous，complexity（复杂性）对应 complicated，属于完美的同义替换。B选项的“误解与欺骗性”属于结果，不是过程特征。
32. [B] shared efforts.
【解析】推理题。第二段第三句明确指出：But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery（但是把一个发现声明转化为成熟的发现，需要集体的审查和认可）。collective（集体的）完美对应 B 选项的 shared efforts（共同的努力）。
33. [B] has been examined by the scientific community.
【解析】细节题。第三段最后一句总结道：As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation ... transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.（随着主张在科学界中运作，观念的互动与对抗使其变为可信的发现）。interaction and confrontation 正是“受到科学界审查（examined）”的过程体现。C选项“编辑和审稿人的认可”只是一部分（gatekeepers），以偏概全。
34. [D] scientific work calls for a critical mind.
【解析】观点态度题。第四段引用了诺奖得主 Albert 的话：“discovery as ‘seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.’”（发现就是看到大家都看到的，却想到都没想到的）。“想到别人没想到的”正是强调科学发现需要独特的、批判性的思维（critical mind）。
35. [C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.
【解析】主旨题。文章从第一段的“个体科学发现面临复杂性”，过渡到第二段“需要可信度过程（credibility process）”，第三段详述“科学界的审查”，第四、五段总结“可信度是如何发生的”。全篇的核心线索是一项科学发现是如何从原科学（protoscience）演变成大众认可的、具有可信度（credibility）的成熟发现的。C 选项（科学实践中可信度的演变）准确概括了全文。B选项“集体审查”只是过程中的一个手段，并非全面主旨。
考研核心句型与长难句
【长难句剖析】
1. 宾语从句与并列结构：
"Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take."
【解析】influence 后接了三个并列的宾语：两个 what 引导的宾语从句，以及一个名词短语 the subsequent actions（其后有 we take 构成的定语从句）。这句展示了主观因素如何全面影响客观实验。
"Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take."
【解析】influence 后接了三个并列的宾语：两个 what 引导的宾语从句，以及一个名词短语 the subsequent actions（其后有 we take 构成的定语从句）。这句展示了主观因素如何全面影响客观实验。
2. 介词+关系代词引导的定语从句：
"This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime."
【解析】through which 引导定语从句修饰 process。句中的 me, here, now 和 anyone, anywhere, anytime 被名词化，非常地道且生动地表达了科学发现从“个体主观体验”转化为“普遍客观真理”的过程。
"This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime."
【解析】through which 引导定语从句修饰 process。句中的 me, here, now 和 anyone, anywhere, anytime 被名词化，非常地道且生动地表达了科学发现从“个体主观体验”转化为“普遍客观真理”的过程。
3. 考研经典“生造词”：
"The goal is new-search, not re-search."
【解析】作者巧妙地将 research 拆解，造出了 new-search。意思是科学的目标是寻找新的东西（new-search），而不是反复研究已知的（re-search）。
"The goal is new-search, not re-search."
【解析】作者巧妙地将 research 拆解，造出了 new-search。意思是科学的目标是寻找新的东西（new-search），而不是反复研究已知的（re-search）。