2001text1

Specialisation can be seen as a response to the problem of an increasing accumulation of scientific knowledge. By splitting up the subject matter into smaller units, one man could continue to handle the information and use it as the basis for further research. But specialisation was only one of a series of related developments in science affecting the process of communication. Another was the growing professionalisation of scientific activity.

No clear-cut distinction can be drawn between professionals and amateurs in science: exceptions can be found to any rule. Nevertheless, the word “amateur” does carry a connotation that the person concerned is not fully integrated into the scientific community and, in particular, may not fully share its values. The growth of specialisation in the nineteenth century, with its consequent requirement of a longer, more complex training, implied greater problems for amateur participation in science. The trend was naturally most obvious in those areas of science based especially on a mathematical or laboratory training, and can be illustrated in terms of the development of geology in the United Kingdom.

A comparison of British geological publications over the last century and a half reveals not simply an increasing emphasis on the primacy of research, but also a changing definition of what constitutes an acceptable research paper. Thus, in the nineteenth century, local geological studies represented worthwhile research in their own right; but, in the twentieth century, local studies have increasingly become acceptable to professionals only if they incorporate, and reflect on, the wider geological picture. Amateurs, on the other hand, have continued to pursue local studies in the old way. The overall result has been to make entrance to professional geological journals harder for amateurs, a result that has been reinforced by the widespread introduction of refereeing, first by national journals in the nineteenth century and then by several local geological journals in the twentieth century. As a logical consequence of this development, separate journals have now appeared aimed mainly towards either professional or amateur readership. A rather similar process of differentiation has led to professional geologists coming together nationally within one or two specific societies, where as the amateurs have tended either to remain in local societies or to come together nationally in a different way.

Although the process of professionalisation and specialisation was already well under way in British geology during the nineteenth century, its full consequences were thus delayed until the twentieth century. In science generally, however, the nineteenth century must be reckoned as the crucial period for this change in the structure of science.

  1. The growth of specialisation in the 19th century might be more clearly seen in sciences such as ________.
    [A] sociology and chemistry
    [B] physics and psychology
    [C] sociology and psychology
    [D] physics and chemistry

  2. We can infer from the passage that ________.
    [A] there is little distinction between specialisation and professionalisation
    [B] amateurs can compete with professionals in some areas of science
    [C] professionals tend to welcome amateurs into the scientific community
    [D] amateurs have national academic societies but no local ones

  3. The author writes of the development of geology to demonstrate ________.
    [A] the process of specialisation and professionalisation
    [B] the hardship of amateurs in scientific study
    [C] the change of policies in scientific publications
    [D] the discrimination of professionals against amateurs

  4. The direct reason for specialisation is ________.
    [A] the development in communication
    [B] the growth of professionalisation
    [C] the expansion of scientific knowledge
    [D] the splitting up of academic societies

  • 0
    点赞
  • 0
    收藏
    觉得还不错? 一键收藏
  • 0
    评论
D=[0.0097 0.0010 0.0016 0.0011 0.0024 0.0029]; tspan=[1:1:7]; N0=[29012 22227 22227 22227 22227 8821]; opts=odeset('reltol',1e-2,'abstol',1e-4);%设置参数 [t,N]=ode45(@ode2,tspan,N0,opts,D); P=N; Z=[]; for i=1:7 Z(i,1)=P(i,1)+(P(i,2)+P(i,3)+P(i,4)+P(i,5))+P(i,6); end D=[]; S=[136726 137646 138326 139232 140011 140541 141008 ]; for j=1:7 D(j,1)= (Z(j)-S(j))/S(j); end F=[]; F=abs(D); G=2000:1:2006 plot(G,F,'LineWidth',1.2) xlabel('时间') ylabel('相对误差') title('(b)相对误差曲线') figure(2) G=2000:1:2006 plot(G,Z,'LineWidth',1.2) xlabel('年份') ylabel('总人口') title('(a)人口拟合曲线') xt=[2000 2006]; yt=[126000 160000]; str={'o','*'}; text(xt,yt,str) text(2000,126743,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') text(2001,127627,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') text(2002,128453,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') text(2003,129227,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') text(2004,129988,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') text(2005,130756,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') text(2006,131448,'\diamondsuit','color','r','HorizontalAlignment','center','FontSize',12,'FontWeigh','bold') 为什么这段代码生成的两个图数据不对等?该如何修改正确?
最新发布
05-22

“相关推荐”对你有帮助么?

  • 非常没帮助
  • 没帮助
  • 一般
  • 有帮助
  • 非常有帮助
提交
评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值