- 最后登录
- 2004-6-9
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 227
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2003-9-23
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 106
- UID
- 145870

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 227
- 注册时间
- 2003-9-23
- 精华
- 1
- 帖子
- 0
|
在这里对不起imong了,因为当时整理出来了,打印出来了,好像删了。不过还有一部分,我贴出……,希望imong不要生我的气哈~我比较喜欢搜集定义,来加深对题目的理解……
Research is an active, diligent and systematic process of inquiry in order to discover, interpret or revise facts, events, behaviors, or theories, or to make practical applications with the help of such facts, laws or theories. The term “research” is also used to describe the collection of information about a particular subject. Generally, one can distinguish between basic research and applied research.
Applied Research is done to solve specific, practical questions; its primary aim is not to gain knowledge for its own sake. It can be exploratory but often it is not. It is almost always done on the basis of basic research. The general public uses the word theory to refer to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer only to ideas that have repeatedly withstood test. Thus, when scientists refer to the theories of biological evolution, electromagnetism, and relativity, they are referring to ideas that have survived considerable experimental testing. Especially fruitful theories that have withstood the test of time are considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense-- that it is true and factual but of course can still be falsified. This includes many theories, such as universally accepted once such as heliocentric theory and controversial ones such as evolution, which are backed by many observations and experimental data. Theories are always open to revision if new evidence is provided or directly contradicts predictions or other evidence. As scientists do not claim absolute knowledge, even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be incorrect if new data and observations contradict older ones. Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of a law falsified by experiments regarding motions at high speeds and in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside of those conditions, Newton's Laws remain excellent accounts of motion and gravity. Because general relativity accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more, General Relativity is currently regarded as our best account of gravitation. As the astrologer works with the ancient symbology giving it interpretation more suitable to this age, it becomes an active entering-into, a deep participation with those symbols and the personality/Self of the [horoscope’s owner] . . . When that participation is achieved there is a breakthrough. The astrologer can be taken . . . inward to realization. Like a lightning flash that reveals a whole landscape formerly in darkness, insight suddenly illuminates the horoscope giving pattern and meaning to what as hitherto just a collection of symbols . . . A door opens to communication with the Inner Self, whether your own or that of the person whose horoscope is being studied.
In short, such views hold that spirits are the real basis of astrology, and that planetary ‘energies’ are really spirit energies, whatever that means. Spirits might of course be psi in disguise, which would make them open to the same objections, for example the absence of criteria for deciding whether psi is present or absent (Alcock, 1987, 1990), and the severe incompatibility of psi with the findings of neuroscience (Beyerstein, 1987; Kirkland, 2000). In effect they replace
one mystery with another and thus make the situation worse for astrology rather
than better. Goals of science Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions, only those that pertain to physical reality (measurable empirical experience). Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, science consistently tests the currently best hypothesis about some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it in light of new observations or data.
Science is not a source of subjective value judgments, though it can certainly speak to matters of ethics and public policy by pointing to the likely consequences of actions. However, science can't tell us which of those consequences to desire or which is 'best'. What one projects from the currently most reasonable scientific hypothesis onto other realms of interest is not a scientific issue, and the scientific method offers no assistance for those who wish to do so. Scientific justification (or refutation) for many things is, nevertheless, often claimed.
five reasons why it is so important for the public!!
可以用来论证science与其他专业的学生的关系,我觉得角度很奇特……
(or read that non-science majors) to understand science.
Science isn't something arcane, intended only for the few. Everyone of us - whether a poet, janitor, or nuclear physicist - has to be able to think scientifically, and to understand some science, to get through with our lives. Every day we face decisions that hinge on science, such as whether to smoke, what to eat, with whom to have sex, and what protection to use (if any). Even for decisions that don't depend on specific scientific facts, science remains the proven set of best methods for acquiring accurate information about the world. Some of you will end up as policy-makers in government or business. Individuals such as these make decisions that fundamentally affect the well-being of everyone, and most of them know no more about science than does the rest of the general public. Yet they are called upon to decide what to do about (and how much money to spend on) nuclear reactors, global warming, environmental toxins, expensive space programs, biomedical research, and applications of biotechnology. It's nonscientists, not scientists, who have the last word on whether the milk we drink can safely come from cows treated with hormones. To make such decisions wisely, the decision makers have to be drawn from a scientifically educated public.
five reasons why we study science
1.As voters, we all bear the ultimate responsibility for those decisions, because we are the ones who decide which candidates and which ballot measures will prevail. We need enough sense about science to select the decision makers who will make good choices when faced with scientific questions.
Even if science were irrelevant to the lives of ordinary Americans, a strong scientific enterprise is essential to our economy, educational system, and society. That requires lots of young people to become excited enough by science that they resolve to become professional scientists. This requires, to some extent, the nurturing support and understanding of the general public.
Scientists are not always able to communicate their findings in an easy to understand manner. Although the scientific community should do a better job of explaining what they have discovered, members of the general public have to expend some energy in making an attempt to understand what is being said. Familiarity with the vernacular of science, knowledge of some of the basic principles, and confidence in one's ability to fit the new findings into one's ever-expanding lode of scientific knowledge are valuable qualities of an informed citizen.
Eventually, the current explanatory theory fails to explain some phenomenon, and someone proposes a replacement or redefinition of the theory. This is what Kuhn calls a paradigm shift, which ushers in a new period of revolutionary science; all scientific fields go through paradigm shifts multiple times as new theories supplant the old.
One well-known Kuhnian example involves Copernicus' suggestion that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the Ptolemaic suggestion that the Sun (and the other planets and stars) revolves around the Earth. The Ptolemaic theory used an elaborate set of epicycles (circles on top of circles) which were used to predict the movements of the heavenly bodies. Ptolemy's original epicyclic combinations were, by the Middle Ages, becoming noticeably less adequate, and fixes by later astronomers were more and more elaborate. Copernicus offered a return to an alternative view (suggested by many in antiquity) but with rather better data to support it; this new account decreased the complexity of theory necessary to account for the available observations. Once Copernicus' theory was accepted by other astronomers, it ushered in a new period of normal science. Refinements added by Kepler and Newton adhered to the new paradigm. Kuhn attributes the success of science to the way in which scientists are able to work within a paradigm, removing the need to repeatedly work from first principles.
Other more recent examples are the acceptance of Einstein's general relativity to replace Newton's account of gravity in the 1920s and 1930s and of Suess and Wegener's plate tectonics in the 1960s by geologists. |
|