點擊查看》》2021考研英語四級閱讀理解精析匯總

這是篇議論文，論及科學探索的方法，總體是因果寫法，具體分析又是對比寫法。作者采用問答方式探究為什么希臘文明頂峰之后兩千年，科技發(fā)展緩慢，而最近兩百年又迅速發(fā)展超越前人，其原因在哪里?是采用新，舊方法所致，歷史之偶然性，還是上天安排。

然后以現(xiàn)代用歸納法，古代用演繹法太狹隘說明科學總是在觀察，實驗，檢驗，證實中前進。但事實難以解釋慢和快的現(xiàn)象。最后以“對立”——事實和理論對立古代重視事實來解釋。然這兩者是對立的統(tǒng)一。真正的理論就是事實。事實，構成之間具邏輯聯(lián)系，就具有理論的一切正面特性。這種區(qū)分雖不足以解釋科學研究中真正方法，但奠定了良好的基礎，含有真正方法中的重要特性。

Method of Scientific Inquiry

Why the inductive and mathematical sciences, after their first rapid development at theculmination of Greek civilization, advanced so slowly for two thousand years—and why in thefollowing two hundred years a knowledge of natural and mathematical science has accumulated,which so vastly exceeds all that was previously known that these sciences may be justlyregarded as the products of our own times—are questions which have interested the modernphilosopher not less than the objects with which these sciences are more immediatelyconversant. Was it the employment of a new method of research, or in the exercise of greatervirtue in the use of the old methods, that this singular modern phenomenon had its origin?Was the long period one of arrested development, and is the modern era one of normal growth?Or should we ascribe the characteristics of both periods to so-called historical accidents—tothe influence of conjunctions in circumstances of which no explanation is possible, save in theomnipotence and wisdom of a guiding Providence?

The explanation which has become commonplace, that the ancients employed deductionchiefly in their scientific inquiries, while the moderns employ induction, proves to be toonarrow, and fails upon close examination to point with sufficient distinctness the contrastthat is evident between ancient and modern scientific doctrines and inquiries. For all knowledgeis founded on observation, and proceeds from this by analysis, by synthesis and analysis,by induction and deduction, and if possible by verification, or by new appeals toobservation under the guidance of deduction—by steps which are indeed correlative parts ofone method; and the ancient sciences afford examples of every one of these methods, or partsof one method, which have been generalized from the examples of science.

A failure to employ or to employ adequately any one of these partial methods, animperfection in the arts and resources of observation and experiment, carelessness inobservation, neglect of relevant facts, by appeal to experiment and observation—these arethe faults which cause all failures to ascertain truth, whether among the ancients or themoderns; but this statement does not explain why the modern is possessed of a greatervirtue, and by what means he attained his superiority. Much less does it explain the suddengrowth of science in recent times.

The attempt to discover the explanation of this phenomenon in the antithesis of “facts” and“theories” or “facts” and “ideas”—in the neglect among the ancients of the former, and their tooexclusive attention to the latter—proves also to be too narrow, as well as open to the charge ofvagueness. For in the first place, the antithesis is not complete. Facts and theories are notcoordinate species. Theories, if true, are facts—a particular class of facts indeed, generallycomplex, and if a logical connection subsists between their constituents, have all the positiveattributes of theories.

Nevertheless, this distinction, however inadequate it may be to explain the source of truemethod in science, is well founded, and connotes an important character in true method. A factis a proposition of simple. A theory, on the other hand, if true has all the characteristics of afact, except that its verification is possible only by indirect, remote, and difficult means. Toconvert theories into facts is to add simple verification, and the theory thus acquires the fullcharacteristics of a fact.

1. The title that best expresses the ideas of thispassage is

[A]. Philosophy of mathematics. [B]. The RecentGrowth in Science.

[C]. The Verification of Facts. [C]. Methods of Scientific Inquiry.

2. According to the author, one possible reason for the growth of science during thedays of the ancient Greeks and in modern times is

[A]. the similarity between the two periods.

[B]. that it was an act of God.

[C]. that both tried to develop the inductive method.

[D]. due to the decline of the deductive method.

3. The difference between “fact” and “theory”

[A]. is that the latter needs confirmation.

[B]. rests on the simplicity of the former.

[C]. is the difference between the modern scientists and the ancient Greeks.

[D]. helps us to understand the deductive method.

4. According to the author, mathematics is

[A]. an inductive science. [B]. in need of simple verification.

[C]. a deductive science. [D]. based on fact and theory.

5. The statement “Theories are facts” may be called.

[A]. a metaphor. [B]. a paradox.

[C]. an appraisal of the inductive and deductive methods.

[D]. a pun.

答案見下一頁》》