1 . For several decades, there has been an extensive and organized campaign intended to generate distrust in science, funded by those whose interests and ideologies are threatened by the findings of modern science. In response, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things.
Stressing successes isn’t wrong, but for many people it’s not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question “Why trust science?” is that scientists use the so-called scientific method. If you’ve got a high school science textbook lying around, you’ll probably find that answer in it. But what is typically thought to be the scientific method — develop a hypothesis (假设), then design an experiment to test it — isn’t what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and sometimes, scientists can be found doing many different things.
If there is no dependable scientific method, then what is the reason for trust in science? The answer is how those claims are evaluated. The common element in modern science, regardless of the specific field or the particular methods being used, is the strict scrutiny (审查) of claims. It’s this tough, sustained process that works to make sure faulty claims are rejected. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a lengthy “peer review” because the reviewers are experts in the same field who have both the right and the obligation (责任) to find faults.
A key aspect of scientific judgment is that it is done collectively. No claim gets accepted until it has been vetted by dozens, if not hundreds, of heads. In areas that have been contested, like climate science and vaccine safety, it’s thousands. This is why we are generally justified in not worrying too much if a single scientist, even a very famous one, disagrees with the claim. And this is why diversity in science — the more people looking at a claim from different angles — is important.
Does this process ever go wrong? Of course. Scientists are humans. There is always the possibility of revising a claim on the basis of new evidence. Some people argue that we should not trust science because scientists are “always changing their minds”. While examples of truly settled science being overturned are far fewer than is sometimes claimed, they do exist. But the beauty of this scientific process is that it explains what might otherwise appear contradictory: that science produces both novelty and stability. Scientists do change their minds in the face of new evidence, but this is a strength of science, not a weakness.
1. How does the author think of the so-called scientific method?| A．Stable. | B．Persuasive. |
| C．Unreliable. | D．Conclusive. |
| A．Explained. | B．Examined. |
| C．Repeated. | D．Released. |
| A．It is not persuasive to reject those faulty claims. |
| B．Settled science tends to be collectively overturned. |
| C．A leading expert cannot play a decisive role in a scrutiny. |
| D．Diversity in knowledge is the common element in science. |
| A．Put Your Faith in Science | B．Defend the Truth in Science |
| C．Apply Your Mind to Science | D．Explore a Dynamic Way to Science |
2 . Kids and science seem to be made for each other!
The basic science is a combination of thought and experiment called the scientific method. It’s where you start with an idea, create a way to prove or disprove your idea, and show what you learned based on facts. Learning to follow the process above helps you think logically and carefully. These important thinking skills can be used in many areas of study. To give a child practice with these thinking skills is like giving vitamins (维生素) to a developing mind.
One of the greatest things we can teach our children is to love learning. Learning science is a great way to do so. Children are easy to be interested in science. Because much of science is hands-on (实践), it attracts most children. Nothing but science makes a child sit up while watching a scientific experiment.
Science opens doors to many subjects at school. Building love for science can be helpful in other areas of study For example, one cannot love science for very long without becoming good at its language-math! So science encourages children to study math. An interest in science is an interest in how things were once understood, compared to how they are understood now. Thus studying science lends itself easily to studying history. And after you do an experiment, you need to write a lab report. Therefore, writing becomes an important part of science.
Science is the basic thing for much of our lives. The science of farming shows how our food is produced; medical science keeps us healthy; even our beds these days are designed according to scientific facts. We almost eat, sleep and breathe with the help of science! When we prepare the next generation of creators and policy makers, it is important to make sure they are not only suitable for their positions but also good at science.
1. What does learning the scientific method mean to kids according to Paragraph 2?| A．Giving them vitamins. | B．Disproving other’s idea. |
| C．Learning in many areas. | D．Developing thinking skills. |
| A．They may find other subjects easy. |
| B．They may keep their bodies healthy. |
| C．They may learn many other subjects well. |
| D．They may study their languages carefully. |
| A．Science makes children love learning. |
| B．Science is based on hand-on experiment. |
| C．Science leaves no time for other subjects. |
| D．Science is important to children’s writing. |
| A．Where can kids learn science? |
| B．Why should kids learn science? |
| C．What can kids learn from science? |
| D．How should kids make use of science? |
3 . Earth is far more alive than we previously thought, according to “deep life” studies that reveal a rich ecosystem beneath our feet that is almost twice the size of all the world’s oceans. Regardless of extreme heat, no light and intense pressure, scientists estimate it has between 15 billion and 23 billion tonnes of microorganisms. “It’s like finding a whole new reservior of life on Earth,” said Karen Lloyd, an associate professor at the University of Tennessee.
Results suggest 70 percent of Earth’s bacteria and archaea exist in the subsurface. One organism found 2.5 kilometers below the surface has been buried for millions of years and may not rely on all energy from the sun. Also, the methanogen (产甲烷菌) has found a way to create methane in this environment, which it may not use to reproduce or divide, but use to replace or repair broken parts. Lengths of their lives were completely different. Some microorganisins have been alive for thousands of years, barely moving except with shifts in earthquakes or eruptions. They’re just active inside, with less energy than people thought possible to support life.
The team consists of 1,200 scientists from 52 countries in disciplines ranging from geology and microbiology to chemistry and physics. The scientists say they will present their findings before the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting opens this week, which are made possible by technical advances on drills and microscopes.
The scientists have been wondering about the point beyond which life can’t exist, but the deeper they dig, the more life they find. There is a temperature maximum — currently 122℃ — but they believe this record will be broken if they keep exploring and developing more advanced instruments.
Questions remain, including how the microbes interact with chemical processes, and what this might reveal about how life and Earth co-evolved.
1. What do the scientists find about the underground microorganisms?| A．They can’t reproduce and divide. |
| B．They’re the oldest living things. |
| C．Some of them consume no energy. |
| D．Some of them almost always keep still. |
| A．It lasts for around one year. | B．It is conducted in 52 countries. |
| C．It involves efforts from multiple fields. | D．It promotes technical development. |
| A．To find the depth limit of life. |
| B．To break their previous record. |
| C．To discover more ancient microorganisms. |
| D．To detect the highest subsurface temperature. |
| A．Organisms Live Better Underground | B．Earth’s Depths Are Full of Life |
| C．Mars Is Far Beyond Human Exploration | D．Subsurface Life Differs from That on Land |
4 . Quantum theory (量子理论) is perhaps the most successful scientific idea ever. Yet, a century after its birth, something remains deeply puzzling about quantum theory. It does not tell us how physical systems behave. Instead, it treats any physical system as a black box: if you do this to it now, it will react like that later. What happens in between? The theory simply doesn't tell us.
An idea has recently begun to catch on. Perhaps there is no need to make anything up about what lies behind quantum theory. Perhaps it really does reveal to us the deep structure of reality, where a property is no more than something that affects something else. Perhaps this is precisely what “properties” are: the effects of interactions.
Think of a simple object such as a blue teacup. Its being blue is not a property of the cup alone: colors happen in our brain as a result of the certain biological structure of our eyes and as a consequence of the interactions between daylight and the cup’s surface. Its being “a teacup" refers to its potential function as a drinking container: for an alien who doesn’t know about drinking tea, the very concept of a teacup is meaningless. As quantum theory shows: they are defined by their physical interactions with the rest of the world.
Then, it comes with a lesson. We understand reality better if we think of it in terms of interactions, not individuals. This is why, in classic game theory, the winners in the long run are those who cooperate. Too foolishly we measure success in terms of an individual’s fortunes. It misunderstands the true nature of reality, and is ultimately self-defeating, which leads to unimaginable consequence and prevents us from addressing challenges that all human-kind faces as a whole.
1. What possibly does quantum theory tell according to the text?| A．How physical systems behave. | B．How to treat physical systems. |
| C．What effects one has on itself. | D．What the structure of reality is. |
| A．By giving an example. | B．By making a comparison. |
| C．By quoting a scientist. | D．By conducting a survey. |
| A．The consequence we bear. | B．The theory in classic games. |
| C．The fortunes individuals have. | D．The way to measure success. |
| A．To clarify a physics theory. | B．To draw attention to interaction. |
| C．To challenge a popular idea. | D．To present reflections on games. |
5 . A strong hit to the head will normally give you a concussion(脑震荡). Woodpeckers(啄木鸟), however, strike their beaks(喙) into trees thousands of times a day and are perfectly fine.
We used to think that a woodpecker’s skull(头骨) worked as a kind of safety helmet which absorbed the shocks. A new study by Sam Van Wassenbergh, a researcher at the University of Antwerp in Belgium, proved that this “common sense” was in fact false.
Van Wassenbergh and his colleagues argued that, if a woodpecker’s head absorbed the force, it would not be able to strike the tree with enough force.
“If the beak absorbed much of its own impact, the unlucky bird would have to pound even harder,” they said in their paper. In other words, if the theory were true, the woodpecker would have to peck even harder to compensate for both the shock-absorbing qualities of the sponge-like bone inside its skull as well as the density(密度) of the wood.
The scientists recorded four different kinds of woodpeckers in zoos as they were pecking. The team used data from their high-speed recordings to build digital models of the woodpeckers. Van Wassenbergh described the woodpeckers motion as “a hammer(锤子) hitting wood” since their movement appeared rigid and focused.
The research suggested that woodpeckers don’t have any shock-absorbing device or the ability to reduce the amount of force. Although they are without “helmets”, the team claimed that the woodpeckers’ tiny size and weight protect them.
A woodpecker’s brain is about 700 times smaller than that of a human. “Smaller animals can withstand higher deceleration(减速). Think about a fly that hits a window and then just flies back again,” Van Wassenbergh said. “So that is why even the hardest hits we observed are not expected to cause any concussion.
1. What did people use to believe about woodpeckers when they peck trees?| A．Their beaks could spread the shocks they produce. |
| B．They could stand slight concussions. |
| C．Their bodies were soft enough to absorb the force. |
| D．Their heads were able to reduce the shocks. |
| A．Influence. | B．Shock. | C．Limit. | D．Benefit. |
| A．Woodpeckers do not have special safety devices. |
| B．How woodpeckers peck depends on their type. |
| C．Density of the wood affects a woodpeckers pecking force. |
| D．The shock absorber theory is mostly correct. |
| A．A guidebook. | B．A medical report. | C．A science magazine. | D．An advertisement. |
6 . A new study from North Carolina State University found that biology textbooks have done a poor job of including material related to climate change. For example, the study found that most biology textbooks published in the 2010s included less information about climate change than they did in the previous decade--despite significant advances in our understanding of how climate change is influencing ecosystems and the environment.
“In short, we found biology textbooks are failing to share enough information about climate change, which is a generation-defining topic in the life sciences,” says Jennifer Landin, author of the study. “These books are the baseline texts for helping students understand the science of life on Earth, yet they are providing very little information about a phenomenon that is having a great impact on habitats, ecosystems, agriculture--almost every aspect (方面) of life on Earth,”
For the study, researchers investigated coverage of climate change in 57 college biology textbooks published between 1970 and 2019. The researchers found climate coverage has varied greatly over those five decades and that the amount of climate coverage in textbooks fell off in the 2010s. In addition to length, the nature of the content has also changed greatly over time.
“One of the most troubling findings was that textbooks are devoting less space to addressing climate solutions now than they did in the 1990s--even as they focus more on the effects of climate change,” Landin says. “That suggests to students that nothing can be done,which is both wildly misleading and contributes to a sense of fatalism (宿命论) regarding cli-mate change.”
“We are hoping that this study will serve as a wake-up call for publishers and instructors. We need to do a much better job of putting climate change into our courses if we want to pre-pare students to understand the role that climate change is playing in shaping life on Earth and how we study it,” Landin says.
1. What is the example in paragraph 1 used to do?| A．Prove biology textbooks’ poor performance. |
| B．Show the dissatisfaction with climate change. |
| C．Attract the attention of students studying biology. |
| D．Show the content of textbooks published in the 2010s. |
| A．No enough material about climate change. |
| B．Providing little new information about biology. |
| C．Not covering every aspect of life on Earth. |
| D．No generation-defining topics in the textbooks. |
| A．By tracking textbook publishers. |
| B．By doing surveys of students in colleges. |
| C．By observing climate change for 50 years. |
| D．By investigating college biology textbooks. |
| A．A wake up call for biology science. |
| B．A warning to take biology seriously. |
| C．A direction of studying climate change. |
| D．An alarm bell for publishers and teachers. |
1. What is the relationship between the speakers?
| A．Teacher and student. | B．Father and daughter. | C．Teammates. |
| A．It is dangerous. | B．It is strange. | C．It is great. |
8 . When raindrops fall to the ground in summer, a familiar scent always follows. Many people call this the “smell of rain”. However, rain is made up of odorless (无味的) water. So, where does this smell come from?
The pleasant smell has long been an interest of scientists since Australian scientists first documented the formation of petrichor in 1964. According to scientists, some plants produce oils during dry periods.
Yet, it’s the second reaction that creates the most petrichor. It occurs when chemicals produced by bacteria in soil are released.
Lots of animals are sensitive to geosmin but human beings are extremely sensitive to it. When it rains after a long period of dryness, drops of water hit the ground. Geosmin is then released from the surfaces.
| A．And when it rains, these oils are released into the air. |
| B．The smell of petrichor is quite pleasant to the human nose. |
| C．There are a group of microorganisms widely found in soils. |
| D．Rain can refresh the soil specially when it rains heavily. |
| E．Scientists found the distinctive smell doesn’t come from rain. |
| F．The pleasant smell always comes into being with the flow of air. |
| G．It is further spread around its surroundings with the aid of wind and rain. |
9 . Kids have always loved skimming stones across water. And everyone knows the thinner and flatter the stone the better, right?
Not necessarily, according to English scientists who have found a fatter, curvier (弯曲的) rock is key to getting good bounce. Bristol University mathematician Ryan Palmer found that while thin, flat stones still provided the best chance of a maximum number of skips, fatter, curvier stones offered something “that’s completely different, but just as spectacular: huge jumps out of the water.”
The scientists had initially been looking into the more serious subject of ice on aircraft, analyzing how ice crystals (晶体) bounced off a layer of liquid formed on a plane’s wings. It turned out this had the “same sort of interactions that you get with you or I standing at the corner of a lake trying to skim a stone across it,” said Professor Palmer, the study’s lead author.
He said the study found a heavier rock gave a super response that produced an almighty jump. When a stone hit the water, horizontal speed turned into upward speed, so it made sense that a heavy rock would put more force into that action. The curviness was also key, because it allowed a heavier stone to jump up off the water.
For those looking to try their arms at big skips, Prof Palmer said the technique remained the same: your throw should be as parallel (平行的) as possible to the top of the water, before you lean back and let the rock fly. While Prof Palmer said he was no expert stone skimmer, he always had a throw when the opportunity arose. “Especially if it looks more like a potato, I’ll have a go,” he said. But he said a potato-shaped stone was probably a little too heavy and round to get the maximum bounce.
1. What kind of stones do people usually choose when skimming them across water?| A．Fatter and curvier. | B．Thinner and flatter. | C．Flatter and heavier. | D．Rounder and curvier. |
| A．Playful. | B．Skillful. | C．Colorful. | D．Powerful. |
| A．It is played only by kids. | B．It needs a certain technique. |
| C．It offers all kinds of opportunities. | D．It is played the best using potatoes. |
| A．The key to selecting best skimming stones. |
| B．The fun skimming stones brings to children. |
| C．A simple game suitable for kids and grownups. |
| D．A study on the water layer on a plane’s wings. |
The Amazon rainforest is home to a great
