Preface
Science is a dominant theme in our culture. Since it touches almost every facet of our life, educated people need at least some acquaintance with its structure and operation. They should also have an understanding of the subculture in which scientists live and the kinds of people they are. An understanding of general characteristics of science as well as specific scientific concepts is easier to attain if one knows something about the things that excite and frustrate the scientist.
This book is written for the intelligent student or lay person whose acquaintance with science is superficial; for the person who has been presented with science as a musty storehouse of dried facts; for the person who sees the chief objective of science as the production of gadgets; and for the person who views the scientists as some sort of magician. The book can be used to supplement a course in any science, to accompany any course that attempts to give an understanding of the modern world, or – independently of any course – simply to provide a better understanding of science. We hope this book will lead readers to a broader perspective on scientific attitudes and a more realistic view of what science is, who scientists are, and what they do. It will give them an awareness and understanding of the relationship between science and our culture and an appreciation of the roles science may play in our culture. In addition, readers may learn to appreciate the relationship between scientific views and some of the values and philosophies that are pervasive in our culture.
We have tried to present in this book an accurate and up-to-date picture of the scientific community and the people who populate it. That population has in recent years come to comprise more and more women. This increasing role of women in the scientific subculture is not an unique incident but, rather, part of the trend evident in all segments of society as more women enter traditionally male-dominated fields and make significant contributions. In discussing these changes and contribution, however, we are faced with a language that is implicitly sexist, one that uses male nouns or pronouns in referring to unspecified individuals. To offset this built-in bias, we have adopted the policy of using plural nouns and pronouns whenever possible and, when absolutely necessary, alternating he and she. This policy is far form being ideal, but it is at least an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of our language in treating half of the human race equally.
We have also tried to make the book entertaining as well as informative. Our approach is usually informal. We feel, as do many other scientists, that we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously. As the reader may observe, we see science as a delightful pastime rather than as a grim and dreary way to earn a living.
2019年11月26日 星期二
英语精读汇粹 3
Advertisers Perform a Useful Service to the Community
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they’re always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. ‘It’s iniquitous,’ they say, ‘that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don’t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it’s the consumer who pays…’
The poor old consumer! He’d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn’t create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read. Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn’t forget is the ‘small ads.’ which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the ‘hatch, match and dispatch’ column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or ‘agony’ column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It’s the best advertisement for advertising there is!
1. What is main idea of this passage?
A. Advertisement.
B. The benefits of advertisement.
C. Advertisers perform a useful service to communities.
D. The costs of advertisement.
2. The attitude of the author toward advertisers is
A. appreciative.
B. trustworthy.
C. critical.
D. dissatisfactory.
3. Why do the critics criticize advertisers?
A. Because advertisers often brag.
B. Because critics think advertisement is a “waste of money”.
C. Because customers are encouraged to buy more than necessary.
D. Because customers pay more.
4. Which of the following is Not True?
A. Advertisement makes contribution to our pockets and we may know everything.
B. We can buy what we want.
C. Good quality products don’t need to be advertised.
D. Advertisement makes our life colorful.
5. The passage is
A. Narration.
B. Description.
C. Criticism.
D. Argumentation.
Vocabulary
come in for ( sth. ) 是某事物的对象，吸引（某事物），获得
flair 天资，天分
iniquitous 极邪恶的，极不公正的
drab 单调的，乏味的
subsist 活下去，生存下去，维持下去
hatch 孵化（指生孩子）
match 匹配，婚姻
dispatch 派遣，发送
agony 极大痛苦，煎熬
agony column （报刊中关于个人疑难问题征询意见的）读者来信专栏
难句译注
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they’re always coming in for criticism.
【参考译文】广告商总是雄心勃勃（想得很大），也许这就是为什么他们老挨批评。
Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion.
【参考译文】他们的批评者似乎对他们很气愤，因为他们在自我抬高/标榜上很有天分。
No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offer such deep insight into human nature.
【参考译文】报纸任何其他栏目都难以提供如此有趣的文章，或提供对人性的内涵如此深刻的洞察。
It’s the best advertisement for advertising there is.
【参考译文】这是广告中最佳的广告。
写作方法与文章大意
文章以因果、对比的手法写出有没有广告的后果及广告的真正作用。文章首先指出广告商遭批评的原因：广告商夸大和人们认为广告浪费钱财、商品价格就搞；然后作者以有无广告的后果突出其功能，没有广告，商品价更高，生活单调、乏味。有了广告，商品价低，生活丰富多彩，人们获取各种信息。
答案详解
1. C. 广告对社会的服务很有用。作者从三方面来叙述广告作用：第二段点出如果广告不为产品开辟广大的市场，我们就得付出很多钱，正是因为大量的广告费用，消费者的商品才会那么便宜。广告除销售商品外，其重要的功能在通知/告诉信息，有关家用商品的许多只是来自广告，还有新产品的介绍。 第三段讲了美化环境功能。如果火车站的墙上和报上没有广告，那会怎么样。一幅悦人心目，机智的广告将改变一切。 第四段讲了它为我们省钱：别忘了广告对我们口袋作出积极的贡献。报纸、电台、电视台公司没有这笔收入很难生存。我们的报纸，我们付给很少，或者说，我们能享受那么多的节目完全是因为广告商花的钱。如果要我们付报纸的全价，那我们要花多少钱！ 最后一段讲了各种专栏的功能。人们可以在这些栏目找工作、买卖房子、宣布婚丧嫁娶信息。这些都围着一个中心：广告对社会服务的有用性。 A. 广告。太笼统。B. 广告之优点。文章不是讲优点，而是讲服务于社会的功能。D. 广告费用。
2. A. 欣赏/赞赏。从上述注释也可推知是A项。最重要的，作者提出种种功能，是为了反驳第一段内提到的论点：完全是非生产企业每年吸收几百万镑，这说明这些大公司利润有多高。最重要的是消费者付的广告费等。反驳更说明了A项对。 B. 值得信任。 C. 批评。 D. 不满意。
3. A. 因为广告商常常爱吹，。见难句译注1.。 B. 因为批评者认为广告浪费钱。 C. 因为广告促使消费者购买不必要的东西。 D. 因为消费者支付更多。
4. C. 优质产品不需要广告。一切产品都需要广告，新产品、老产品都需要。 A. 广告对我们的口袋作出贡献。 B. 我们可以买到我们所需的。 D. 广告使我们生活丰富多彩。这三条都提到也是真实的。
5. C. 文章一开始就提到对广告的批评，然后作者以对比的手法说明其功能。 A. 叙事。B. 描写。 D. 议论。
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they’re always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. ‘It’s iniquitous,’ they say, ‘that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don’t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it’s the consumer who pays…’
The poor old consumer! He’d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn’t create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read. Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn’t forget is the ‘small ads.’ which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the ‘hatch, match and dispatch’ column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or ‘agony’ column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It’s the best advertisement for advertising there is!
1. What is main idea of this passage?
A. Advertisement.
B. The benefits of advertisement.
C. Advertisers perform a useful service to communities.
D. The costs of advertisement.
2. The attitude of the author toward advertisers is
A. appreciative.
B. trustworthy.
C. critical.
D. dissatisfactory.
3. Why do the critics criticize advertisers?
A. Because advertisers often brag.
B. Because critics think advertisement is a “waste of money”.
C. Because customers are encouraged to buy more than necessary.
D. Because customers pay more.
4. Which of the following is Not True?
A. Advertisement makes contribution to our pockets and we may know everything.
B. We can buy what we want.
C. Good quality products don’t need to be advertised.
D. Advertisement makes our life colorful.
5. The passage is
A. Narration.
B. Description.
C. Criticism.
D. Argumentation.
Vocabulary
come in for ( sth. ) 是某事物的对象，吸引（某事物），获得
flair 天资，天分
iniquitous 极邪恶的，极不公正的
drab 单调的，乏味的
subsist 活下去，生存下去，维持下去
hatch 孵化（指生孩子）
match 匹配，婚姻
dispatch 派遣，发送
agony 极大痛苦，煎熬
agony column （报刊中关于个人疑难问题征询意见的）读者来信专栏
难句译注
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they’re always coming in for criticism.
【参考译文】广告商总是雄心勃勃（想得很大），也许这就是为什么他们老挨批评。
Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion.
【参考译文】他们的批评者似乎对他们很气愤，因为他们在自我抬高/标榜上很有天分。
No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offer such deep insight into human nature.
【参考译文】报纸任何其他栏目都难以提供如此有趣的文章，或提供对人性的内涵如此深刻的洞察。
It’s the best advertisement for advertising there is.
【参考译文】这是广告中最佳的广告。
写作方法与文章大意
文章以因果、对比的手法写出有没有广告的后果及广告的真正作用。文章首先指出广告商遭批评的原因：广告商夸大和人们认为广告浪费钱财、商品价格就搞；然后作者以有无广告的后果突出其功能，没有广告，商品价更高，生活单调、乏味。有了广告，商品价低，生活丰富多彩，人们获取各种信息。
答案详解
1. C. 广告对社会的服务很有用。作者从三方面来叙述广告作用：第二段点出如果广告不为产品开辟广大的市场，我们就得付出很多钱，正是因为大量的广告费用，消费者的商品才会那么便宜。广告除销售商品外，其重要的功能在通知/告诉信息，有关家用商品的许多只是来自广告，还有新产品的介绍。 第三段讲了美化环境功能。如果火车站的墙上和报上没有广告，那会怎么样。一幅悦人心目，机智的广告将改变一切。 第四段讲了它为我们省钱：别忘了广告对我们口袋作出积极的贡献。报纸、电台、电视台公司没有这笔收入很难生存。我们的报纸，我们付给很少，或者说，我们能享受那么多的节目完全是因为广告商花的钱。如果要我们付报纸的全价，那我们要花多少钱！ 最后一段讲了各种专栏的功能。人们可以在这些栏目找工作、买卖房子、宣布婚丧嫁娶信息。这些都围着一个中心：广告对社会服务的有用性。 A. 广告。太笼统。B. 广告之优点。文章不是讲优点，而是讲服务于社会的功能。D. 广告费用。
2. A. 欣赏/赞赏。从上述注释也可推知是A项。最重要的，作者提出种种功能，是为了反驳第一段内提到的论点：完全是非生产企业每年吸收几百万镑，这说明这些大公司利润有多高。最重要的是消费者付的广告费等。反驳更说明了A项对。 B. 值得信任。 C. 批评。 D. 不满意。
3. A. 因为广告商常常爱吹，。见难句译注1.。 B. 因为批评者认为广告浪费钱。 C. 因为广告促使消费者购买不必要的东西。 D. 因为消费者支付更多。
4. C. 优质产品不需要广告。一切产品都需要广告，新产品、老产品都需要。 A. 广告对我们的口袋作出贡献。 B. 我们可以买到我们所需的。 D. 广告使我们生活丰富多彩。这三条都提到也是真实的。
5. C. 文章一开始就提到对广告的批评，然后作者以对比的手法说明其功能。 A. 叙事。B. 描写。 D. 议论。
2019年11月25日 星期一
英语精读汇粹 2
Vicious and Dangerous Sports Should be Banned by Law
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remains as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungey lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long age; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally – admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it’s amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don’t the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remains as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungey lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long age; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bearbaiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of ‘the sporting spirit’ is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally – admittedly with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen cooped up in cages, or public floggings of any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilizing influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognize that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.
英语精读汇粹 1
The only way to travel is on foot
The past ages of man have all been carefully labeled by anthropologists. Descriptions like ‘ Palaeolithic Man’, ‘Neolithic Man’, etc., neatly sum up whole periods. When the time comes for anthropologists to turn their attention to the twentieth century, they will surely choose the label ‘Legless Man’. Histories of the time will go something like this: ‘in the twentieth century, people forgot how to use their legs. Men and women moved about in cars, buses and trains from a very early age. There were lifts and escalators in all large buildings to prevent people from walking. This situation was forced upon earth dwellers of that time because of miles each day. But the surprising thing is that they didn’t use their legs even when they went on holiday. They built cable railways, ski-lifts and roads to the top of every huge mountain. All the beauty spots on earth were marred by the presence of large car parks. ’
The future history books might also record that we were deprived of the use of our eyes. In our hurry to get from one place to another, we failed to see anything on the way. Air travel gives you a bird’s-eye view of the world – or even less if the wing of the aircraft happens to get in your way. When you travel by car or train a blurred image of the countryside constantly smears the windows. Car drivers, in particular, are forever obsessed with the urge to go on and on: they never want to stop. Is it the lure of the great motorways, or what? And as for sea travel, it hardly deserves mention. It is perfectly summed up in the words of the old song: ‘I joined the navy to see the world, and what did I see? I saw the sea.’ The typical twentieth-century traveler is the man who always says ‘I’ve been there. ’ You mention the remotest, most evocative place-names in the world like El Dorado, Kabul, Irkutsk and someone is bound to say ‘I’ve been there’ – meaning, ‘I drove through it at 100 miles an hour on the way to somewhere else. ’
When you travel at high speeds, the present means nothing: you live mainly in the future because you spend most of your time looking forward to arriving at some other place. But actual arrival, when it is achieved, is meaningless. You want to move on again. By traveling like this, you suspend all experience; the present ceases to be a reality: you might just as well be dead. The traveler on foot, on the other hand, lives constantly in the present. For him traveling and arriving are one and the same thing: he arrives somewhere with every step he makes. He experiences the present moment with his eyes, his ears and the whole of his body. At the end of his journey he feels a delicious physical weariness. He knows that sound. Satisfying sleep will be his: the just reward of all true travellers.
The past ages of man have all been carefully labeled by anthropologists. Descriptions like ‘ Palaeolithic Man’, ‘Neolithic Man’, etc., neatly sum up whole periods. When the time comes for anthropologists to turn their attention to the twentieth century, they will surely choose the label ‘Legless Man’. Histories of the time will go something like this: ‘in the twentieth century, people forgot how to use their legs. Men and women moved about in cars, buses and trains from a very early age. There were lifts and escalators in all large buildings to prevent people from walking. This situation was forced upon earth dwellers of that time because of miles each day. But the surprising thing is that they didn’t use their legs even when they went on holiday. They built cable railways, ski-lifts and roads to the top of every huge mountain. All the beauty spots on earth were marred by the presence of large car parks. ’
The future history books might also record that we were deprived of the use of our eyes. In our hurry to get from one place to another, we failed to see anything on the way. Air travel gives you a bird’s-eye view of the world – or even less if the wing of the aircraft happens to get in your way. When you travel by car or train a blurred image of the countryside constantly smears the windows. Car drivers, in particular, are forever obsessed with the urge to go on and on: they never want to stop. Is it the lure of the great motorways, or what? And as for sea travel, it hardly deserves mention. It is perfectly summed up in the words of the old song: ‘I joined the navy to see the world, and what did I see? I saw the sea.’ The typical twentieth-century traveler is the man who always says ‘I’ve been there. ’ You mention the remotest, most evocative place-names in the world like El Dorado, Kabul, Irkutsk and someone is bound to say ‘I’ve been there’ – meaning, ‘I drove through it at 100 miles an hour on the way to somewhere else. ’
When you travel at high speeds, the present means nothing: you live mainly in the future because you spend most of your time looking forward to arriving at some other place. But actual arrival, when it is achieved, is meaningless. You want to move on again. By traveling like this, you suspend all experience; the present ceases to be a reality: you might just as well be dead. The traveler on foot, on the other hand, lives constantly in the present. For him traveling and arriving are one and the same thing: he arrives somewhere with every step he makes. He experiences the present moment with his eyes, his ears and the whole of his body. At the end of his journey he feels a delicious physical weariness. He knows that sound. Satisfying sleep will be his: the just reward of all true travellers.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)