第一段
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 followsanambiguous 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, andself-deception abound.
单词&词组
idealized [aɪˈdiːəlaɪzd] v.将...理想化
version [ˈvɜːrʒn]（出现4次）n.方式，版本，说法
ambiguous [æmˈbɪɡjuəs]（出现4次）adj.模棱两可的，模糊的，引起歧义的
complicated [ˈkɑːmplɪkeɪtɪd]（出现4次）adj.复杂的，难懂的
objective [əbˈdʒektɪv]（出现6次）n.目标；adj.客观公正的
context [ˈkɑːntekst]（出现9次）n.语境，背景，上下文
subsequent [ˈsʌbsɪkwənt]（出现7次）adj.随后的，后来的
misinterpretation n.误解
characterized [ˈkærəktəraɪzd] v.使…具有特点
self-deception（合成词）n.自我欺骗
carry out one's work（开展工作）
follow an route（遵循....路径）
Prior knowledge（先验经验）
本段翻译
在理想化的科学研究中，有关这个世界真相在等待着运用科学方法开展研究的研究者们来观察和收集。但在日常的科学实践中，科学发现却常沿一条模棱两可二复杂的道路而行。我们力求客观，可我们无法逃脱自身独特的生活阅历背景。先验知识和兴趣影响着我们的体验。我们对体验的解读以及我们随后采取的行动。误解、差错、自我欺骗的“机会”无处不在。
第二段
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly stakedmining claims, they are full of potential. But it takescollective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into amature 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.
单词&词组
consequently [ˈkɑːnsɪkwentli]（出现7次）adv.因此，所以
protoscience 原科学；proto-单词前缀，原始的
stake [steɪk]（出现2次）n.股本，赌注，桩；v.用桩支撑
mining [ˈmaɪnɪŋ]（常用词）n.采矿
collective [kəˈlektɪv]（出现4次）adj.集体的，共同的；n.集团
scrutiny [ˈskruːtəni]（出现3次）n.仔细检查
mature （出现1次）adj.成熟的
credibility [ˌkredəˈbɪləti] n.可靠
community [kəˈmjuːnəti]（出现23次）n.社区，团体，界，群落，共享
wisdom [ˈwɪzdəm]（出现5次）n.智慧，明智有见识的想法
innovation [ˌɪnəˈveɪʃn]（出现14次）n.创新
be full of（充满）
transform into （将...转变为...）
本段翻译
因此，发现声明应该被视作科协雏形。与新宣传的采矿权声明相类似，它们充满着可能性。但是发现声明需要经过集体审查和认可才能转变为成熟的发现。这就是“取信过程”，通过该过程，单个研究者的“我”、此时、此地转变成了科学界的“任何人”、任何时间、任何地点。“客观知识”是目标，而非起点。
第三段
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receivesintellectualcredit. 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 reviewersact asgatekeepers 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 andconfrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.
单词&词组
intellectual [ˌɪntəˈlektʃuəl]（常见词）adj.智力的；n.知识分子
credit [ˈkredɪt]（出现9次）v/n.相信；n.称赞，信用
complex [ˈkɒmpleks]（出现19次）adj.复杂的，难懂的；[僻义]n.建筑群
structure [ˈstrʌktʃər]（出现16次）n.结构，构造
reviewer [rɪˈvjuːər] n.评审者
accompanying [əˈkʌmpəniɪŋ] v.伴随，陪伴
interaction [ˌɪntəˈrækʃən]（出现4次）n.相互作用
confrontation [ˌkɑːnfrənˈteɪʃn] n.对抗
belief [bɪˈliːf]（出现13次）n.信任，信念，相信
credible [ˈkredəbl] adj.可信的
quote [kwoʊt]（出现6次）v.应用，引用，举例说明，报价,上市
take control of（掌控）
act as （扮演...角色）
work one's way through（排除困难，努力向...方向前进）
本段翻译
发现声明一旦公开化，发现者即会获得学术赞誉。但和采矿声明不同的是，其随后的发展掌控在科学界手中。在科学界这个复杂的社会结构中，研究者做出发现；编辑和评审通过控制发现的发表过程来扮演看门人的角色；其他科学家则使用这一发现来满足自己的需求；最后，公众（包括科学家）接受这个新发现以及可能随之而来的技术。在发现声明通过科学界的逐级审查之时，与该科技相容或相抗的理念间的相互作用、相互对抗把个人的研究发现转变陈科学界的可信发现。
第四段
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed asincomplete 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 andphysiologist 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.
单词&词组
paradox [ˈpærədɑːks]（出现2次）n.矛盾的人，悖论
duplication [ˌduːplɪˈkeɪʃn]（出现2次）n.复制
modification [ˌmɑːdɪfɪˈkeɪʃn] n.修改，修饰
refutation [ˌrefjuˈteɪʃn] n.反驳
novelty [ˈnɑːvlti]（出现1次）新鲜，新奇的事物
physiologist [ˌfɪziˈɑːlədʒɪst] n.生理学家
appreciate [əˈpriːʃieɪt]（出现7次）v.赏识，认可
justiied [ˈdʒʌstɪfaɪd] （出现13次）adj.合理的
be viewed as（被视为）
appear to（似乎）
本段翻译
这一可信性证实过程存在两个矛盾。第一，科学研究通常关注现有知识中被认为不完整或不正确的某一方面。重复和证实人们已经知道或相信的知识几乎得不到回报。目标是进行“新的研究”，而不是“重复研究”。新发表的看似至关重要且有说服力的发现声明和可靠发现总是会受到质疑，并且可能会被后来的研究者修改或者反驳，这不足为奇。第二，创新本身常常会引发怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者、生理学家阿尔贝特·圣捷尔吉曾把发现描述为“见世人所见，思无人所思”。但是，思无人所思并且告知他人其所遗漏之处，可能并不会改变他们的观点。有时候，真正新的发现声明需要数年才能被接受和重视。
第五段
In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim — a process thatcorresponds 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.”
单词&词汇
correspond [ˌkɔːrəˈspɑːnd]（出现3次）v.相一致，类似于，符合+to
philosopher [fəˈlɑːsəfər] n.哲学家
revise [rɪˈvaɪz]（出现4次）v.校订，复习
reasoning [ˈriːzənɪŋ] v.推理
conception [kənˈsepʃn]n.(出现2次) n.构象，设想，怀孕
本段翻译
最后，可信度“降临”到发现声明上——这一过程与哲学家所描述的“思维的交汇”相契合。“我们一起论证、质疑、校正、并相互完善彼此的推理以及彼此对理性的理解”。
5道题目
31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its ______.
[A] uncertainty and complexity
[B] misconception and deceptiveness
[C] logicality and objectivity
[D] systematicness and regularity
答案为原文单词同义替换
32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires _________.
[A] strict inspection
[B] shared efforts
[C] individual wisdom
[D] persistent innovation
But后面是重点
34. Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree that _________.
[A] scientific claims will survive challenges
[B] discoveries today inspire future research
[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified
[D]scientific work calls for a critical mind
通过题设名字定位
35. Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
[A] Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development
[B] Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery
[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science
[D] Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science
标题：文章主旨
参考答案
ABBDC
