剑雅17阅读真题Test2 Passage3原文

剑雅17一共收集了雅思真题4套，下文羊驼小编整理了剑雅17第二套阅读真题原文Test 2 Reading Passage 3，以下是阅读部分第三篇文章Passage 3的文章原文及参考译文，供各位烤鸭们复习参考。想要了解更多关于剑雅17听力和阅读真题答案及解析的考生可查看剑雅17听力阅读真题答案及解析汇总，为助力各位烤鸭们备考雅思，羊驼教育雅思APP推出剑桥雅思真题及答案解析视频，可在羊驼雅思APP课程一栏获取剑桥雅思系列的视频信息。

剑雅17 Test 2 Passage3阅读27-29题解析请查看剑雅17阅读27-29题Test2 Passage3答案解析和剑雅17阅读30-31题Test2 Passage3答案解析

READING PASSAGE  3

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27–40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

Insight or evolution？

Two scientists consider the origins of discoveries and other innovative behavior

Scientific discovery is popularly believed to result from the sheer genius of such intellectual stars as naturalist Charles Darwin and theoretical physicist Albert Einstein. Our view of such unique contributions to science often disregards the person’s prior experience and the efforts of their lesser-known predecessors. Conventional wisdom also places great weight on insight in promoting breakthrough scientific achievements, as if ideas spontaneously pop into someone’s head – fully formed and functional.

There may be some limited truth to this view. However, we believe that it largely misrepresents the real nature of scientific discovery, as well as that of creativity and innovation in many other realms of human endeavor.

Setting aside such greats as Darwin and Einstein – whose monumental contributions are duly celebrated – we suggest that innovation is more a process of trial and error, where two steps forward may sometimes come with one step back, as well as one or more steps to the right or   left. This evolutionary view of human innovation undermines the notion of creative genius and recognizes the cumulative nature of scientific progress.

Consider one unheralded scientist: John Nicholson, a mathematical physicist working in the 1910s who postulated the existence of ‘proto-elements’ in outer space. By combining different numbers of weights of these proto-elements’ atoms, Nicholson could recover the weights of all the elements in the then-known periodic table. These successes are all the more noteworthy given the fact that Nicholson was wrong about the presence of proto-elements: they do not actually exist. Yet, amid his often fanciful theories and wild speculations, Nicholson also proposed a novel theory about the structure of atoms. Niels Bohr, the Nobelprize-winning father of modern atomic theory, jumped off from this interesting idea to conceive his now-famous model of the atom.

What are we to make of this story? One might simply conclude that science is a collective and cumulative enterprise. That may be true, but there may be a deeper insight to be gleaned. We propose that science is constantly evolving, much as species of animals do. In biological systems,  organisms may display new characteristics that result from random genetic mutations. In the same way, random, arbitrary or accidental mutations of ideas may help pave the way for advances in science. If mutations prove beneficial, then the animal or the scientific theory will continue to thrive and perhaps reproduce.

Support for this evolutionary view of behavioral innovation comes from many domains. Consider one example of an influential innovation in US horseracing. The so-called ‘acey-deucy’ stirrup placement, in which the rider’s foot in his left stirrup is placed as much as 25 centimeters lower   than the right, is believed to confer important speed advantages when turning on oval tracks. It  was developed by a relatively unknown jockey named Jackie Westrope. Had Westrope conducted methodical investigations or examined extensive film records in a shrewd plan to outrun his rivals? Had he foreseen the speed advantage that would be conferred by riding acey-deucy? No. He suffered a leg injury, which left him unable to fully bend his left knee. His modification just  happened to coincide with enhanced left-hand turning performance. This led to the rapid and widespread adoption of riding acey-deucy by many riders, a racing style which continues in today’s thoroughbred racing.

Plenty of other stories show that fresh advances can arise from error, misadventure, and also pure serendipity – a happy accident. For example, in the early 1970s, two employees of the company 3M each had a problem: Spencer Silver had a product – a glue which was only slightly sticky – and no use for it, while his colleague Art Fry was trying to figure out how to affix temporary bookmarks in his hymn book without damaging its pages. The solution to both these problems was the invention of the brilliantly simple yet phenomenally successful Post-It note.    Such examples give lie to the claim that ingenious, designing minds are responsible for human  creativity and invention. Far more banal and mechanical forces may be at work; forces that are   fundamentally connected to the laws of science.

The notions of insight, creativity and genius are often invoked, but they remain vague and of

doubtful scientific utility, especially when one considers the diverse and enduring contributions of individuals such as Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Galileo, Newton, Kepler,    Curie, Pasteur and Edison. These notions merely label rather than explain the evolution of human  innovations. We need another approach, and there is a promising candidate.

The Law of Effect was advanced by psychologist Edward Thorndike in 1898, some 40 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work on biological evolution, On the Origin of Species. This simple law holds that organisms tend to repeat successful behaviors and to refrain from performing unsuccessful ones. Just like Darwin’s Law of Natural Selection, the Law of Effect involves an entirely mechanical process of variation and selection, without any end objective insight.

Of course, the origin of human innovation demands much further study. In particular, the provenance of the raw material on which the Law of Effect operates is not as clearly known as    that of the genetic mutations on which the Law of Natural Selection operates. The generation of novel ideas and behaviors may not be entirely random, but constrained by prior successes and     failures – of the current individual (such as Bohr) or of predecessors (such as Nicholson).

The time seems right for abandoning the naive notions of intelligent design and genius, and for scientifically exploring the true origins of creative behavior.

剑雅17参考译文

洞察力或者进化论

两位科学家对发现和其它创新行为起源的思考。

人们普遍认为，科学发现是博物学家Charles Darwin和理论物理学家Albert Einstein等智力明星的纯粹天才的结果。我们对这种独特的科学贡献的看法往往 忽略了这个人之前的经验和他们鲜为人知的前辈的努力。传统智慧在促进突破性 科学成就方面也非常重视洞察力，就像想法自发地蹦到某人的脑袋里一样--完全 形成并发挥作用。

这种观点可能有一些有限的道理。然而，我们认为，它在很大程度上误导了科学 发现的真正性质，以及人类努力的许多其他领域的创造力和创新的本质。

抛开Darwin 和 Einstein 这样的伟大人物_____他们的不朽贡献得到了应有的赞扬_____我们认为创新更像是一个试错的过程。在这个过程中.向前走两步有时可 能会退一步，向右或向左走一步或多步。这种对人类创新的进化观点削弱了创造 性天才的概念，并承认了科学进步的累积性。

想想一位默默无闻的科学家 John   Nicholson,他是一位19世界10年代的数学物 理学家，曾假设外太空存在"原始元素"。通过结合这些原始元素原子的不同数 量的重量，Nicholson 可以恢复当时已知的元素周期表中所有元素的重量。鉴于 Nicholson 关于原始元素的存在是错误的，这些成功就更值得注意了：它们实际 上并不存在，然而，在他经常幻想的理论和疯狂猜测中，Nicholson 还提出了一 个关于原子结构的新理论。诺贝尔奖获得者、现代原子理论之父Niels Bohr从这 个有趣的想法中出发，构思出他现在著名的原子模型。

我们该如何看待这个故事呢?人们可能会简单地得出结论，科学是一项集体和累 积的事业。这可能是真的，但可能还有更深层次的见解有待挖掘。我们认为，科 学是不断进化的，就像动物的物种一样。在生物系统中，生物体可能显示出由随 机基因突变产生的新特征。同样地，随机的、任意的或偶然的思想突变可能有助 于为科学的进步铺平道路。如果突变被证明是有益的，那么动物或科学理论就会 继续茁壮成长，也许还会繁衍。

许多领语都支持这种行为创新的进化观点。举一个美国赛马中有影响力的创新例 子。所谓的"Acey-deucy"马镫位置，其中骑手的脚放在他的左马镫比右马镫低 25厘米，被认为在椭圆形赛道上转弯时具有重要的速度优势。它是由一个相对 不知名的骑师Jackie Westrope开发的。Westrope 是否进行了有条不紊的调查或研 究了大量的电影记录以实现超越对手的精明计划?他是否预见到了通过骑行 "Acey-deucy"而获得的速度优势?没有。他的腿受伤了，这使他无法完全弯曲他 的左膝。他的改造恰好与增强左转弯性能相吻合。这导致了许多骑手迅速而广泛 地采用了"Acey-deucy"骑法，这种比赛方式在今天的纯种马比赛中继续存在。

大量的其他故事表明，新的进展可能来自于错误、不幸，也可能是纯粹的意外_____个快乐的意外。例如，在20世纪70年代初，3M公司的两名员工各遇到 一个问题：Spencer  Silver有一个产品——一种只有轻微粘性的胶水———但没有用 处，而他的同事Art Fry 则试图找出如何在他的赞美诗书上粘贴临时书签而不损  坏书页。解决这两个问题的办法是发明了极其简单但却异常成功的便利贴。这样  的例子让人无法相信，聪明的设计者是人类创造力和发明的源泉。更加普通和机 械的力量可能在起作用；这些力量从根本上与科学规律有关。

洞察力、创造力和天才的概念经常被引用，但它们仍然是模糊的，科学效用也值 得怀疑，特别是当人们考虑到诸如 Plato,Leonardo   da   Vinci,Shakespeare, Beethoven,Galileo,Newton,Kepler,Curie,Pasteur   and   Edison等人的不同和持久的 贡献。这些概念只是给人类创新的演变贴上标签，而不是解释。我们需要另一种 方法，而且有一个很有希望的候选人。

效应定律是由心理学家 Edward Thorndike在1898年提出的，大约在Charles Darwin 发表其关于生物进化的开创性著作《物种起源》 一书40年后。这个简单 的定律认为，生物体倾向于重复成功的行为，而避免做不成功的行为。就像 Darwin 的自然选择法则一样，效应法则涉及一个完全机械的变异和选择过程， 没有任何最终目标。

当然，人类创新的起源需要进一步研究。特别是，"效果法则"所涉及的原材料 的来源并不像"自然选择法则"所涉及的基因突变那样清楚。新的想法和行为的产生可能不完全是随机的，而是受到先前的成功和失败的限制——当前的个人 (如 Bohr)   或 前 辈 ( 如Nicholson)   的限制。

现在似乎是放弃智能设计和天才的天真概念，并科学地探索创造性行为的真正起源的时候了。

以上就是羊驼小编给大家整理的剑雅17阅读真题Test2 Passage3原文和剑雅17参考译文，希望对大家考试会有一定的帮助。