疫情之下,如何高分打破2021考研英语阅览33_the(如今疫情情况如何)

原标题：疫情之下，如何高分打破2021考研英语阅览33

作者自创：葛天命 tony

今日，先把我之前在此发布的关于考研英语阅览的文章和视频的内容扼要回想一下：

除了精读精研说明30多篇真题文章，也供给了一些一起观念、真知灼见和办法体系。

考试文章的论题会活络多变，而我的办法体系则具有平稳性和耐久价值。请我们思考一下:

1. 啥是飞速阅览-高分打破法？

2. 阅览文章的本质是啥？

3. 考生的自我认知、情绪和眼光？

4. 英语词汇天然回主意，怎样天然地记牢单词和掌控词汇的用法？

5. 关于碾碎长难句的知道；

6. 四位一体，超速决胜，多倍成效考研温习法，是耸人听闻、夸大误导，仍是确 理呢？

7. 立异人物定位如何了解，你的人物是啥呢？

8. 怎样了解考研英语是一门技能和功夫？

请我们除了看我发布的文章说明当作温习材料外，也看一看我在此发布的视频，视频内容与我的文章并不完全相同，两者替换，作用会比照好。

如今，我再以 “2012年英语一” 的一篇真题阅览为例，带领我们进行“第一战线精读精研”，偏重于文法/文章之法。请我们先把下面的原文通读一遍，时刻设定为3-5分钟。

2012 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 experience. prior knowledge and interest 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 it 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 azent-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.

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.”

说明

2012 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 experience. prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

· 第一段 抱负的科学发现进程，实践的科学发现进程及其广泛存在的疑问。

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.

· 第二段 科学发现要经过集体的确证/深信而变成可靠的科学。

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 it 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.

第三段 集体确证/深信一个科学发现的具体进程的描绘。

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 azent-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.

第四段 科学发现的集体确证/深信进程中存在的疑问。

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.”

第五段 科学发现的集体确证进程的最结束果，集体达到共同。

文章主题：科学发现的集体确证/深信

全体规划：“事务表象-说明/阐明” 型

科学发现的确证/深信—缘由-进程-内在疑问-最结束果

文章体裁：阐明文

文章体裁：科技大领域-科学研讨/发现回来搜狐，查看更多

责任修改：

原标题：疫情之下，如何高分打破2021考研英语阅览33 作者自创：葛天命 tony 今日，先把我之前在此发布的…

原标题：疫情之下，如何高分打破2021考研英语阅览33 作者自创：葛天命 tony 今日，先把我之前在此发布的…