I.
1. SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND METHODS OF SCIENCE
:
It is sometimes said that there is no such thing as the so-called "scientific method"; there are only the methods used in science. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there is often a special sequence of procedures which is involved in the establishment of the working principles of science. This sequence is as follows: (I) a problem is recognized, and us much information as possible is collected; (2) a solution (i. e. a hypothesis) is proposed and the consequences arising out of this solution are deduced; (3) these deductions are tested by experiment, and as result the hypothesis is accepted, modified or discarded.
:
1. Find two sentences which express two different viewpoints on the existence of "scientific method". 2. What words show that the first sentence is an opinion? 3. What word shows that these viewpoints are in opposition? 4. Find the words equivalent to "scientific method". 5. What procedure does the scientist follow in his research?
2. PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE
:
As students of science you are probably sometimes puzzled by the terms "pure" and "applied" science. Are these two totally different activities, having little r no interconnection? Let us begin by examining what is done by each.
Pure science is primarily concerned with the development of theories (or, as they are frequently called, models) establishing relationships between the phenomena of the universe. When they are sufficiently validated these theories (hypotheses, models) become the working laws or principles of science. In carrying out this work, the pure scientist usually disregards its application to practical affairs, confining his attention to explanations of how and why events occur.
:
1. Does the author give definition of both "pure" and "applied" science? 2. Find the word which is used as an equivalent of "sciences". 3. When does a hypothesis become a principle of science? 4. What questions is the pure scientist concerned with? 5. Find the words equivalent to "how and why events occur". 6. What is usually disregarded by the pure scientist?
3. MATHEMATIZATION OF NATURAL SCIENCES
:
Exact science in its generally accepted sense can be referred to as a family of specialized natural sciences, each of them providing evidence and information about the different aspects of nature by somewhat different working methods. It follows that mathematics in its pure sense does not enter into this frame, its object of study, being not nature itself. Being independent of all observations of the outside world, it attempts to build logical systems based on axioms. In other words, it concentrates on formulating the language of mathematical symbols and equations which may be applied to the functional relations found in nature.
|
|
|
This "mathematization", in the opinion of most specialists, is witnessed first in physics which deals with general laws of matter and energy on subatomic, atomic and molecular levels. Further application of these mathematical laws and studies is made by chemistry and results in structural bonds between the elements of matter being established.
:
1. What is generally understood by exact science? 2. How does the author describe "specialized" natural sciences? 3. Why does mathematics not belong to this family? 4. What is the objective of mathematics? 5. Is there only one definition of the objective? 6. What does the application of mathematical laws in chemistry result in?
4. THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE
:
To speculate about the future is one of the most basic qualities of man. It involves two aspects: one is to forecast what the future development will be and the other is to determine in what approximate period of time it is going to take place. To make such a prognosis means to learn from the past experience and to extrapolate the knowledge into the future. Recently, however, the rate of change has been so great as to make it difficult to learn from experience, at least as far as the time factor is concerned. To take but one example, a prediction of man's possible landing on the Moon around the turn of the century was made as late as 1961, only 8 years before the actual event! So, to be on the safe side, we had better leave time to take care of itself, and concentrate our attention on what the future may be like.
There is yet another problem involved: are we to accept submissively any possible course of events, or are we to work for a future most suited for most people? The choice is to be made, at different levels, by every individual and by every society.
:
1. What are the two aspects of speculation about the future? 2. What are the two steps of any prognosis? 3. Why has it been so difficult recently to make any predictions concerning the future development? 4. What example is cited to illustrate the difficulty? 5. Does the author make any suggestions concerning this difficulty? Why does he suggest this? 6. What dilemma are we faced with and what choice is to be made by every individual and every society? 7. What are Russian equivalents of: before the actual event, leave time to take care of itself, what the future may be like?
SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE
:
What is the nature of the scientific attitude, the attitude of the man or woman who studies and applies physics, biology, chemistry or any other science? What are their special methods of thinking and acting? What qualities do we usually expect them to possess?
To begin with, we expect a successful scientist to be full of curiosity - he wants to find out how and why the universe works. He usually directs his attention towards problems which have no satisfactory explanation, and his curiosity makes him look for the underlying relationships even if the data to be analysed are not apparently interrelated. He is a good observer, accurate, patient and objective. Furthermore, he is not only critical of the work of others, but also of his own, since he knows man to be the least reliable of scientific instruments.
|
|
|
And to conclude, he is to be highly imaginative since he often looks for data which are not only complex, but also incomplete.
:
1. What qualities do we expect to find in a successful scientist? 2. Why do we say that a successful scientist is full of curiosity? 3. Why is it difficult to see the underlying relationships? 4. Why is he critical of his own work? 5. Why is it necessary for him to be highly imaginative? 6. Give a Russian equivalent of the title and of the data analysedand the data to be analysed.
6. THE EXPLORATION OF AN EXOTIC PLANET
:
Let us see what it means to explore a planet like the Earth. Imagine us living on some other planet, say, Mars. Let us start with ground-based observations. If we looked at the Earth from Mars using a large telescope, it would appear as a cloud-covered and distant planet. The bright features would soon be recognized as clouds. The underlying dark features would represent the Earth's surface. If we studied the surface features for a long time, their accurate map could be constructed. If spectroscopic investigation of the Earth's atmosphere in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared regions of the spectrum were carried out, it would give approximately correct information about such gases as oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and ozone. Investigations of the infrared spectrum of atmosphere gases would indicate the variation of temperature and pressure with altitude. These conclusions could be check if we sent a spacecraft to orbit the Earth. The radio signals from our spacecraft might provide some additional information. Bui if we wanted to study the planet more thoroughly, we should have to send a land mission to the Earth.
1) :
1. What techniques are available for exploring an exotic planet? 2. What kind of information would be obtained with the help of a large telescope? 3. What kind of information would be obtained from spectroscopic investigation? 4. What would be the purpose of sending spacecraft to orbit the planet? 5. What would be the purpose of sending a land mission there?
2) :
it would appear as; the bright features; the underlying dark features; variation of temperature with altitude; a land mission.
7. PROBING THE UNIVERSE
:
Until quite recently man had no way of looking into space xept through optical telescope. Optical astronomy enriched science with profound knowledge of the Universe. But for radio-astronomy, however, we should have never made such new remarkable discoveries in the Universe as pulsars, radio galaxies, etc.
It should be emphasized that thanks to radio-astronomy, astronomers have detected several dozen chemical compounds in the gas and dust clouds of interstellar space. It is desirable that theorists and experimenters should try to figure out how these compounds were made. It is believed that when gas atoms collide with the dust, they would stick. The dust seems to act as if it were a collector of atoms and facilitated their combination.
Further progress in radio-astronomy will demand that scientists should take more and more advantage of instrumented satellites and should set up observatories on the Moon and on planets so that they could carry out continuous observation of space. In general, with longer observing times and with the help of cosmic laboratories, the sensitivity of detecting far-away bodies and chemical compounds would increase. More cosmic information would be obtained.
|
|
|
If use were made of such facilities as these, the next decade or so would reveal the richest rewards of space science.
1) :
1. What are the latest discoveries in astronomy due to? 2. What is the actual contribution of radio-astronomy to science? 3. What is the hypothesis of the formation of chemical compounds in space? (What makes you think that this is a hypothesis?) 4. What are the prospects of the nearest future development in the field?
II.
Text A. Science and Technology
:
1. Science problems can be roughly classified as analytic and synthetic. In analytic problems we seek the principles of the most profound natural processes, the scientist working always at the edge of the unknown. This is the situation today, for instance, within the two extremes of research in physics elementary particle physics and astrophysics both concerned with the properties of matter, one on the smallest, the other on the grandest scale. Research objectives in these fields are determined by the internal logic of the development of the field itself. Revolutionary shocks to the foundations of scientific ideas can be anticipated from these very areas.
2. As to synthetic problems, they are more often studied because of
the possibilities which they hold for practical applications, immediate
and distant, than because their solution is called forby the logic of
science. This kind of motivation strongly influences the nature of scientific thinking and the methods employed in solving problems. Instead of
the traditional scientific question: ''How is this to be explained?" the
question behind the research becomes "How is this to be done?" The
doing involves the production of a new substance or a new process with
certain predetermined characteristics. In many areas of science, the
division between science and technology is being erased and the chain
of research gradually becomes the sequence of technological and engineering stages involved in working out a problem.
3. In this sense, science is a Janus-headed figure. On the one hand,
it is pure science, striving to reach the essence of the laws of the
material world. On the other hand, it is the basis of a new technology,
the workshop of bold technical ideas, and the driving force behind
continuous technical progress.
4. In popular books and journals we often read that science is making greater strides every year, that in various fields of science discovery
is followed by discovery in at steady stream of increasing significance
and that one daring theory opens the way to the next. Such may be the impression with research becoming a collective doing and scientific data exchange a much faster process. Every new idea should immediately be taken up and developed further, forming the initial point of an avalanche-like process.
5. Things are, in fact, much more complex than that. Every year scientists are faced with the problems of working through thicker and tougher material, phenomena at or near the surface having long been explored, researched, and understood. The new relations that we study, say, in the world of elementary particles at dimensions of the order of 1013 cm or in the world of superstellar objects at distances of billions of light years from us, demand extremely intense efforts on the part of physicists and astrophysicists, the continuous modernization of laboratories with experimental facilities becoming more and more grandiose and costing enormous sums. Moreover, it should be stressed that scientific equipment rapidly becomes obsolete. Consequently, the pace of scientific development in the areas of greatest theoretical significance is drastically limited by the rate of building new research facilities, the latter depending on a number of economic and technological factors not directly linked to the aims of the research. It may take, for example, more than 10 years from the initial decision to build a 100200 billion electron volt accelerator to its completion.
|
|
|
It should be borne in mind, too, that few measurements and readings given by these great facilities push science forward, results of any great significance being very rare. For instance, tens of thousands of pictures taken during the operation of an accelerator will have to be scrutinized in the hope of finding, among typically trite processes, signs of a new interaction or of a new event whose presence or absence may confirm a theoretical idea.
:
1.
1. . , , . 2. the situation these very areas?
2.
1. . : What are the two motive forces behind synthetic and analytic research? What are the consequences arising from the change in motivation for research? What is the present-day relation between science and technology? What is meant by the doing? 2. 1 2.
3. , .
4. .
3.
1. , .
2. striving to reach the essence ... the
hop of bold technical ideas.
4.
1. , science. .
2. , , , .
5
1. : Subject of Research, Tools of Research Results of Research.
Text B. What Science Is
:
1. It can be said that science is a cumulative body of knowledge about the natural world, obtained by the application of a peculiar method practised by the scientist. It is known that the word science itself is derived from the Latin "scire", to know, to have knowledge of, to experience. Fundamental and applied sciences are commonly distinguished; the former being concerned with fundamental laws of nature, the latter engaged in application of the knowledge obtained. Technology is the fruit of applied science, being the concrete practical expression of research done in the laboratory and applied to manufacturing commodities to meet human needs.
2. The word "scientist" was introduced only in 1840 by a Cambridge professor of philosophy who wrote: "We need a name for describing cultivator of science in general. I should be inclined to call him a scientist". "The cultivators of science" before that time were known as "natural philosophers". They were curious, often eccentric, persons who poked inquiring fingers at nature. In the process of doing so they started a technique of inquiry which is now referred to as the "scientific method".
3. Briefly, the following steps can be distinguished in this method. First comes the thought that initiates the inquiry. It is known, for example, that in 1896 the physicist Henri Becquerel, in his communication to the French Academy of Sciences, reported that he had discovered rays of an unknown nature emitted spontaneously by uranium salts. His discovery excited Marie Curie, and together with her husband Pierre Curie she tried to obtain more knowledge about radiation. What was it exactly? Where did it come from?
4. Second comes the collecting of facts: the techniques of doing this will differ according to the problem which is to be solved. But it is based on the experiment in which anything may be used to gather the essential data from a test-tube to an earth-satellite. It is known that the Curies encountered great difficulties in gathering their facts, as they investigated the mysterious uranium rays.
|
|
|
5. This leads to step three: organizing the facts and studying the relationships that emerge. It was already noted that the above rays were different from anything known. How to explain this? Did this radiation come from the atom itself? It might be expected that other materials also have the property of emitting radiation. Some investigations made by Mme Curie proved that this was so. The discovery was followed by further experiments with "active" radioelements only.
6. Step four consists in stating a hypothesis or theory; that is, framing a general truth that has emerged, and that may be modified as new facts emerge. In July 1898, the Curies announced the probable presence in pitchblende ores of a new element possessing powerful radioactivity. This was the beginning of the discovery of radium.
7. Then follows the clearer statement of the theory. In December 1898, the Curies reported to the Academy of Sciences: "The various reasons enumerated lead us to believe that the new radioactive substance contains a new element to which we propose to give the name of Radium. The new radioactive substance certainly contains a great amount of barium, and still its radioactivity is considerable. It can be suggested therefore that the radioactivity of radium must be enormous".
8. And the final step is the practical test of the theory, i. e. the prediction of new facts. This is essential, because from this flows the possibility of control by man of the forces of nature that are newly revealed.
9. Note should be taken of how Marie Curie used deductive reasoning in order to proceed with her research, this kind of "detective work" being basic to the methodology of science, It should be stressed further that she dealt with probability and not with certainty in her investigation. Also, although the Curies were doing the basic research work at great expense to themselves in hard physical toil, they knew that they were part of an international group of people all concerned with their search for truth. Their reports were published and immediately examined by scientists all over the world. Any defects in their arguments would be pointed out to them immediately.
:
1.
1. . 2. : a cumulative body of knowledge, a peculiar method practised by the scientist, manufacturing commodities to meet human needs.
2.
1. . , . 2. , : . ..
3.
1. . . 2. initiates.
4.
1. . the collecting of facts .through their transformations into their equivalents and pronouns. 2. : , , .
5.
1. . , . ( , ?). 2. to emerge.3. .
6.
1. . , . ( , ?). 2. that is 3. .
7 8.
1. . , . 2. : , , . 3. . 4. 6- i. e.
9.
1. . , . 2. 9 .
.
Text C. Research: Fundamental and Applied, and the Public
:
1. People are always talking about fundamental research, implying
thereby the existence of a nameless opposite. A good definition of fundamental research will certainly be welcomed: let us see whether we can
invent one. We have to begin, of course, by defining research. Unfortunately the concept of research contains a negative element. Research is searching without knowing what you are going to find: if you know what you are going to find you have already found it, and your activity is not research. Now, since the outcome of your research is unknown, how can you know whether it will be fundamental or not?
2. We may say for instance that fundamental research is that which you
undertake without caring whether the results will be of practical value or not. It may not be reasonable to go further and say that fundamental research is that which will be abandoned as soon as it shows a sign of leading to results of practical value. By saying this you may limit your own achievement. It will be better to say that fundamental research is that which may have no immediate practical value, but can be counted upon as leading to practical value sooner or later. The extension of knowledge and understanding of the world around us will always be profitable in the long run, if not in the short.
3. This is a very powerful argument for fundamental research and it
is a completely unassailable one, and yet there are people who will not like it. Let us seek a definition that will give fundamental research a value of its own, not dependent upon other uses appearing soon or late. We say for instance that fundamental research is that which extends the theory. Now we have to theorize upon theory.
4. There have been several viewpoints about theory. One is that theory discerns the underlying simplicity of the universe. The non-theorist
sees a confused mass of phenomena; when he becomes a theorist they fuse
into a simple and dignified structure. But some contemporary theories are
so intricate that an increasing number of people prefer dealing with
the confusion of the phenomena than with the confusion of theory.
5. A different idea suggests that theory enables one to calculate the
result of an experiment in a shorter time than it takes to perform the
experiment. I do not think that the definition is very pleasing to the
theorists, for some problems are obviously solved more quickly by
experimenters than by theorists.
6. Another viewpoint is that theory serves to suggest new experiments. This is sound, but it makes the theorist the handman of the
experimenter, and he may not like this auxiliary role. Still another
viewpoint is that theory serves to discourage the waste of time on making useless experiments.
7. Let us try to flatter theory by giving it a definition that shall not
describe it as a mere handmaid of experiment or a mere device for
saving time. I suggest that theory is an intellectual instrument granting a
deep and indescribable contentment to its designer and to its users.
This instrument is made up of units which can be compared, for
instance, to different branches of physics: solid state physics, relativity, acoustics, elementary particles and others, which sometimes have only a remote relation with one another and may not even be interconnected at all.
8. The rest of my talk will be devoted to a different question which is: how are we going to communicate to the layman some of our passion for our science? This is a very important question, for everyone is a layman until he becomes a scientist, if we can solve the problem of interesting the layman we may succeed in attracting the potential Fermis, Slaters, Lands and Fletchers of future into the field of, say, physics. Nothing could be more desirable.
9. A frequent technique is that of surprise. The trouble with this is that one cannot be surprised if one is not accustomed to the situation which is nullified by the surprise. Imagine, for example, a physicist trying to surprise an audience of laymen by telling them that there are a dozen elementary particles instead of two or three, or that the newest cyclotron imparts an energy of 500 mev to protons. It simply will not work, because the listeners will have no background to compare this information with.
10. It is also a mistake to think that we can excite an audience by solving a mystery for them. The trouble here is that practically no one is interested in the answer to a question which he never thought of asking.
11. Relativity had a wonderful build-up in the decade before 1905, for the physicists of that era were acquainted with the sequence of experiments which were designed to show that the earth moves relatively to the ether and which obstinately showed the opposite. Each stage in the unfolding of quantum mechanics was exciting to the physicists who knew the earlier stages, because they knew the problems which were left unsolved. The writer of a detective story creates the mystery before he solves it; but the mystery usually begins with the discovery of a murdered man, and this is considerably more exciting than a murdered theory. The corresponding technique in physics consists in trying to create a particular state of out-of-dateness in the mind of the public, in the expectation of bringing them up-to-date at the end of the lecture or paper. There is too much risk of having the audience in the out-of-date condition, and this technique cannot be recommended.
12. Another mistake, in my opinion at least, is that of stressing a paradox. Try telling an audience that if you know the exact position of a particle you cannot know its momentum, and vice versa the effect is unpredictable but obviously not what you wanted. Still another mistake is that of springing an isolated fact upon the audience. An isolated fact is not science and it is not interesting. Facts are of interest only as parts of a system. And we must strive to interest the layman in the system.
:
13.
1. research, definition argument . 2. , : , , ; : . 3. : a nameless opposite; searching; outcome of your research; immediate practical value; research can be counted upon as leading; in the long run, if not in the short; a very powerful argument for.
47.
1. , , . 2. : , ; ; ; ; . 3. : the underlying simplicity; the handman of the experimenter; a device for saving time; a remote relation.
812.
I. 8- , . .
Text D. Scientific Innovation: Its Impact on Technology
:
Mr. A.: The impact of scientific activity on technology is often
discussed today. But one thing is not clear. What is meant here: the impact
of today's scientific activity on today's technology or the impact of todays
scientific developments on technology thirty years from now?
Mr. B.: I think there is usually an interval of twenty years or so
between the discovery of a new scientific principle and its impact on
industry. In the case of the transistor, for example, it took about that
long. Some things move a bit faster but it must be admitted that many
are even slower.
For example, our computers are based on fundamental discoveries in physics that may be traced back thirty, forty, even fifty years.
What will come out of contemporary science, out of the research that
is being done today we just do not know.
Mr. A.: Do you think the isolated inventor is still the usual source
of innovation, or has the group inventor been put to the fore now?
Mr. B.: It seems that the lone inventor in most fields has been replaced by the group. But more often than we realize the original brilliant idea is still the product of one man's genius. He may, however, live in agroup environment and have the advantage of the scientific technical competence and intellectual contacts that come from working with a large group of people.
Mr. A.: You are probably right. But as soon as a new idea is put
forward, it requires many people's efforts before it can be transformed
into a product. And at this stage innovation becomes a group and not an
individual activity, involving both a sophisticated body of information
and a sophisticated technology.
:
1. What is often discussed today? 2. What words are equivalent to scientific innovation? 3. What is the usual interval between the discovery of a new scientific principle and its impact on industry? 4. What example is given to illustrate the above statement? 5. What period of time is meant by it took about that long? 6. What are computers based on? 7. Do we know what will come out of contemporary science? 8. How far back were fundamental discoveries in physics made? 9. What kind of inventors are discussed in the text? 10. What words are equivalent to the isolated inventory 11. Is the author sure that the lone inventor has been replaced by the group? Give your reason. 12. What is the potential role of the lone inventor? 13. When does science become a group and not an individual activity? 14. What is the Russian equivalent of a sophisticated body of information?
Text E.
