第一篇：2013考研英语(一)翻译真题。

2013考研英语

（一）翻译真题--中域教育网

46.yet when one looks at the photographs of the gardens created by the homeless, it strikes one that, for all their persity of styles, these gardens speak of various other fundamental urges beyond that of decoration and creative expression.47.A sacred place of peace, however, crude it may be, is a distinctly human need, as opposed to shelt which is a distinctly animal need.48.The gardens of the homeless which are in effect homeless garden introduce from in to an urban environment where it either didn’t exist or was not discernible as such

49.Mast of us give in to a demoralization of spirit which we usually blame on some psychological conditions until one day we find ourselves in a garden and feel the oppression vanish as if by magic

50.It is this implicit or explicit reference to nature that fully justifies the use of the word garden, though in a “liberated” sense, to describe these synthetic constructions.

第二篇：2013考研英语(一)翻译真题及解析

2013考研英语

（一）翻译真题及解析--中域教育网

46.yet when one looks at the photographs of the gardens created by the homeless, it strikes one that, for all their persity of styles, these gardens speak of various other fundamental urges beyond that of decoration and creative expression.解析

考察重点：非谓语动词做后置定语，状语从句，插入语

这个句子结构非常清晰：it strikes one that, for all their persity of styles,these gardens speak of various other fundamental urges beyond that of decoration and creative expression.是主句，其中for all their persity of styles是插入语。时间壮语从句yet when one looks at the photographs of the gardens created by the homeless,提前至主句之前，其中created by the homeless 是过去分词短语充当后置定语，用来修饰 the gardens。词汇的识别：句子中的动词looks at，对应的宾语是 the photographs of the gardens,因此翻译成“观看”。句子中created by the homeless对应的宾语是 the gardens,因此翻译成“创建、建立”。句子中的动词speak of对应的宾语是 various other fundamental urges，因此翻译成“透露、显示、表明”。

参考翻译：然而当我们观看那些由无家可归的人创建的家园的照片时，它们的那些各种各样的风格，会给人以深深的震撼。这些家园在它的装饰和创造性表示之上，透露出了其他基本的需求。

评分标准：三个动词 “look at, created by the homeless和speak of”的翻译各占0.5分，目标汉语的通顺流畅占0.5分。

47.A sacred place of peace, however, crude it may be, is a distinctly human need, as opposed to shelt which is a distinctly animal need.解析

考察重点：让步壮语从句，插入语，比较状语从句

这个句子结构简洁：A sacred place of peace, however crude it may be, is a distinctly human need,是主句，其中, however crude it may be,是让步壮语从句充当插入语； as opposed to shelter which is a distinctly animal need.是比较状语从句。

词汇的识别：句子中的三个系词在表与信息的提示之下分别翻译成为“是人类的基本需求”；“无论多么粗糙（贫瘠）”；“是动物的基本需求”。

参考翻译：一块神圣的和平之地，不管它有多么粗糙，它都是一种人类基本的需求，和庇护所相反，那只是动物的基本需求。

评分标准：三个系词的翻译各占0.5分，目标汉语的通顺流畅占0.5分。

48.The gardens of the homeless which are in effect homeless garden introduce from in to an urban environment where it either didn’t exist or was not discernible as such

解析：

考察重点：定语从句

这个句子结构简洁： The gardens of the homeless which are in effect homeless garden introduce from it to an urban environment where it either didn’t exist or was not discernible as such是主句，其中 which are in effect homeless garden 是定语从句修饰 The gardens of the homeless;定语从句where it either didn’t exist or was not discernible as such修饰先行词 an urban environment。

参考翻译： 无家可归的人的家园，事实上是无所谓家的家园，给要么是不存在的，要么是无法分辨得清的城市环境引入了一种形式。评分标准：动词短语“introduce from it to”、系词“are”、“didn’t exist, was not discernible”的翻译各占0.5分，目标汉语的通顺流畅占0.5分。

49.Mast of us give in to a demoralization of spirit which we usually blame on some psychological conditions until one day we find ourselves in a garden and feel the oppression vanish as if by magic

解析

考察重点：时间壮语从句，定语从句

这个句子结构稍显复杂：Mast of us give in to a demoralization of spirit which we usually blame on some psychological conditions 是主句，其中, which we usually blame on some psychological conditions 是定语从句 until one day we find ourselves in a garden and feel the oppression vanish as if by magic.是时间状语从句。

词汇的识别：动词短语“give in”在宾语 demoralization of spirit的指导下，翻译为“屈服于”；“blame which on some psychological conditions”中的blame翻译成为“推卸到”；find发现，feel感受到。参考翻译： 我们当中大多数人都屈服于精神的道德败坏，我们经常把这种精神上的败坏推卸到心理环境上，直到有一天我们发现自己处于一个家园当中，并感受到这种压迫好像魔法一样消失.评分标准：三组动词的翻译各占0.5分，目标汉语的通顺流畅占0.5分。

50.It is this implicit or explicit reference to nature that fully justifies the use of the word garden, though in a “liberated” sense, to describe these synthetic constructions.解析：

考察重点：强调句型，插入语

这个句子结构稍显复杂： It is this „„that „„是强调句型，还原成正常语序后句子表达为“this implicit or explicit reference to nature fully justifies the use of the word garden”；though in a“liberated”sense是插入语。

词汇的识别：动词“justify”在宾语 the use of word garden的指导下，翻译为“证实„是合理的”；动词“describe”在宾语“these synthetic constructions”的指导之下翻译成“描述”。

参考翻译： 正是这种隐晦或明显的涉及自然，尽管是从一种解放的意义上来说, 充分地证实了用来描述这些人造建筑的花园这个单词很贴切。

评分标准：两个动词的翻译各占0.5分，强调句型的翻译占0.5分，目标汉语的通顺流畅占0.5分。

第三篇：历年考研英语一阅读真题翻译(2004-2014)

2014年考研英语阅读真题 Text 1

In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,” George Osbome,Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme.Only if the jobless arrive at the job centre with a register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit-and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly.What could be more reasonable? 为了“让生活变得更美好”以及减少“依赖”，英国财政大臣乔治•奥斯本引入了“求职预付金”计划。只有当失业者带着简历到就业中心，注册在线求职并开始找工作，才有资格获得补助金——然后他们应该每周而非每两周报告一次。有什么比这更合理呢？

More apparent reasonableness followed.There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker’s allowance.“Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on.” he claimed.“We’re doing these things because we know they help people say off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsides laziness.What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”-protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.更加明显的合理性如下。现在领取求职者补贴要等待七天。“这前几天应该用来找工作，而不是办理失业登记（以获得救济金）。”他说，“我们这样做是因为我们知道，这样会帮助人们摆脱补助并让依赖补助的人尽快就业。”帮助？真的吗？乍一听，这是位关心社会的大臣，他努力改善人们的生活，包括对一个明显放纵的体系的“改革”，这个体系不要求新失业者付出多少努力去找工作，为其懒惰埋单。我们将会知道，激励他的是他对“基本的公正”的热诚——保护纳税人，控制花费以及确保只有最值得帮助的申请者才能得到补助金。

Losing a job is hurting: you don’t skip down to the job centre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state.It is financially terrifying psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get.You are now not wanted;you support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get.You are now not wanted;you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life.Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared.Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.失业是痛苦的：你不会内心歌唱并跳跃着到就业中心去，为从这个慷慨国度得到加倍收入的前景而欣喜。在经济上它令人生畏，在心理感到难堪，并且你还知道那种扶持的微薄和非常难以得到。现在没人需要你；你现在被排除在工作环境之外，那里会给予你人生的目标和体制。更糟糕的是，失去了用以养家糊口和支付账单的至关重要的收入。问任何新失业者他们想要什么，答案永远是：一份工作。

But in Osborne land, your first instinct is to fall into dependency-permanent dependency if you can get it-supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood.It is as though 20 years of ever-tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened.The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens.Even the very phrase ‘jobseeker’s allowance’invented in 1996-is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no mandatory right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions.Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job;no entitlement and no insurance, at £71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.但是在奥斯本之国，你的第一反应就是坠入依赖——永远的依赖，如果你能得到的话——它由一个非常乐意放任你弄虚作假的国家所支持。好像这二十年一直严厉的求职和补助金管理系统的改革从未发生过。英国福利的原则不再是如果发生灾难，你能为自己投保失业险和得到无条件赔付。甚至正是“求职者补贴”这个词语，在将失业者重新定义为“求职者”，他人通过缴纳国民保险金可享有补助，而求职者则没有这个基本权利。作为替代，申请者得到的是一周71.70 英镑的限时“补贴”，条件是积极地找工作：没有津贴也没有保险，在欧盟这也是最小气之一了。

Text 2

All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession---with the possible exception of journalism.But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.Dur-ing the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation.The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools.But most law graduates never get a big-firm job.Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this.One is the excessive costs of a legal education.There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam.This leaves today’s average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts.Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reform-ing the system would help both lawyers and their customers.Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to imple-ment them.One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree.Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school.If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawy-er, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so.Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business.Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm.This keeps fees high and innovation slow.There is pressure for change from within the profession, but oppo-nents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms’ efficiency.After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions.America should follow.在全世界，律师比任何其他职业的人都更招憎恨——新闻业可能是个例外。但是没有多少地方能比美国更让客户有更多的理由抱怨。

在经济危机之前的十年间，美国法律服务费用的增长速度是通货膨胀的两倍。最好的律师赚得盆满钵满，吸引着更多的学生争相进入法学院。但是大部分法学毕业生从未获得一份大律所的工作。他们中的许多人转而成为那种妨害行为诉讼的提交者，这使得侵权制度成了一场昂贵的噩梦。

这里面有很多原因。其一是法律教育的费用过高。在美国大部分州只有一条成为律师的途径；在某个无关的专业读四年取得本科学位，然后在美国律师协会授权的200 所法学院之一读三年取得法律学位，并为准备律师资格考试花费不菲。这给现在这些普通的法学院毕业生留下在本科债务之外10 万美元的债务。法学院债务意味着他们不得不拼命地努力工作。

改革这一体系会对律师和他们的客户都有所帮助。明智的想法已经存在了好长时间，但是管理该职业的州级机构对实施它们太保守了。一个想法是准许人们读本科学位时学习法律。另外一个是，让学生在法学院只读两年之后就参加律师资格考试。如果这一考试对于一名准律师来说确实是足够严格的测试，那么就应该准许那些有能力提早参加的学生们参加。不需要额外培训的学生就可以削减他们债务大山的三分之一。

费用如此之高的另外一个原因是该行业限制性的同业公会式的所有权结构。除哥伦比亚特区外，非律师人员不得持有律所的任何股份。这使得费用居高不下而创新脚步缓慢。在行业内部存在要求变革的压力，但是监管部门中的反对变革者坚称，将局外人排除在律所之外，可以让律师与赚钱的压力隔离而合乎职业道德标准地为客户服务。

实际上，准许非律师人员参股，通过鼓励律所采用新技术和聘请职业经理人来致力于提高律所效率，可以降低成本并改善对顾客的服务。毕竟，其它国家如澳大利亚和英国都已开始使其法律行业自由化。美国应该效仿。

Text 3

The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polya-kov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels.The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collabora-tive nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich inpidual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear.First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and ques-tion the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.300 万美元的基础物理学奖的确是一个有趣的尝试，正如亚历山大•帕里雅科夫三月份领取今年奖项时所言。而且该类奖项远非仅此一例。按照《自然》杂志新闻特写栏目一篇文章所讨论的，近年来一系列奖金丰厚的研究奖项已经加入诺贝尔奖的行列。许多奖项（如基础物理学奖）来自于互联网企业家的资助，其银行账户是电话号码数量级的。据称，这些慈善家在各自从事的领域已经获得成功，想用自己的财富去让那些有科学成就的人士受到关注。

这有什么让人不喜欢的呢？据新闻特写栏目中援引一小部分科学家所言，非常之多。古语云，有钱买不到社会地位，这些暴富的企业家并不能为他们的奖金买来诺贝尔奖的声望。科学家称，新设奖项是那些幕后人自抬身价的一种举动。它们会扭曲基于成就并由同行评议引导的研究体系。它们会巩固同行评议研究的现状。它们并不资助同行评议研究。它们延续了孤独天才的神话。

正如《自然》杂志以前已经指出的那样，对于科学奖项——新设的和原有的——如何分配，存在某些忧虑是合理的。今年推出的“生命科学突破奖”，对生命科学的范畴所持观点并不具代表性。但是诺贝尔基金会对每一奖项只能由三名仍在世者获得的限制，由于现代科学研究的协作特性而早已不再适宜——这将由当论及确认希格斯波色子的发现时，对于谁可忽略而引起不可避免的争论这一情况来证实。当然，诺贝尔奖本身就是由一位富豪个人设立的，他决定了用自己的金钱去做他想要做的事。赋予诺贝尔奖合理性的是时间，而非设立的初衷。

有些科学家常常会抱怨新的奖项，有两件事却是显而易见。第一，如果被授予这样的奖项，大部分研究人员会接受它。第二，金钱和

关注度投向科学而不是其它地方，这无疑是好事。批评和质疑这种机制是公平合理的——毕竟这是做研究的文化——但它是奖金提供者按

照自己的意愿处置的金钱。以感谢的心情和优雅的风度接受这样的礼物是明智的。

Text 4

“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences(AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America.Regrettably, however, the report's failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identi-fy actions that could be taken by “federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educa-tors, inpidual benefactors and others” to “maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientif-ic scholarship and education.”In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences.Among the commission's 51 members are top-tier-university presi-dents, scholars,lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.The goals identified in the report are generally admirable.Because representative government presuppos-es an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy;stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government;and encourages the use of new digit-al technologies.To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students' ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day.The report also advo-cates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.Unfortunate-ly, despite 2½ years in the making, “The Heart of the Matter” never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities.The commission ig-nores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don't know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits.Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing “progressive,” or left-liberal propaganda.Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets or self-reliance —as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.The AAAS displays great enthu-siasm for liberal education.Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.美国艺术与科学院刚发布的报告《问题的核心》，因肯定了人文和社会科学对美国自由民主的繁荣和安全的重要性而值得赞扬。然而，遗憾的是该报告没有论及通才教育所面临危机的真正本质，这可能造成弊大于利的结果。

2010 年，首要的国会民主党人和共和党人致函美国艺术与科学院，要求其确定可由“联邦、州和地方政府、大学、基金会、教育工作者、个人捐助者和其他人”采取的措施，以“保持国家在人文和社会科学学术和教育方面的优势”。作为回应，美国艺术与科学院成立了人文和社会科学委员会。该委员会51 名成员中有顶级大学的校长、学者、律师、法官和公司执行总裁，也有来自外交、电影、音乐和新闻界的杰出人物。

这份报告中确立的目标大体上是值得称赞的。因为代议制政府的前提是公民知情，该报告支持全面的文化素养；强调学习历史和政治，特别是美国历史和美国政治；以及鼓励使用新的数字技术。为了鼓励创新和竞争，报告呼吁增加研究投资，对紧密结合的课程要精益求精

（它们会提高学生在21 世纪有效地解决问题和交流沟通的能力），增加对教师的资助和鼓励学者转化所学知识以面对当今的巨大挑战。报告还主张加强对外语、国际事务的学习和扩展留学计划。

不幸的是，尽管撰写报告用了两年半的时间，《问题的核心》却从未触及到问题的核心：我们一流院校的通才教育本质上是狭隘的。委员会忽视了几十年来美国各院校输送的毕业生不明白通才教育的内容和特点，因而丧失了它的益处。令人痛心的是，国内校园内曾有的探索精神，已经被利用人文和社会科学作为宣扬“进步的”或左翼民主的宣传工具所代替。

如今，教授们通常将进步的历史观和公共政策视为正统的学习科目，而将保守的或古典自由主义的观点——例如：自由市场和自力更生——描述为逾越了常规、合理事物和理性调研的界限。

2013年考研英语阅读真题 Text 1

In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn’t affect her.Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant’s sweater descended over the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment.This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn’t be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline’s three-year

indictment of “fast fashion”.In the last decades or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Unable to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely.Quicker turnarounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit.Those labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposable——meant to last only a wash or two, although they don’t advertise that——and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks.By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking an industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace.The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers.For H&M to offer a $5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2,300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amounts of harmful chemicals.Overdressed is the fashion world’s answer to consumer-activist bestsellers like Michael Pollen’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.“Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, and wasteful,” Cline argues.Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year——about 64 items per person –and no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste.To-wards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named Sarah Kate Beau-mont, who since 2008 has made all of her own clothes——and beautifully.But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft;her example can’t be knocked off.Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environ-ment——including H&M, with its green Conscious Collection Line——Cline believes lasting change can only be effected by the customer.She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainabili-ty, be it in food or in energy.Vanity is a constant;people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can’t afford not to.Text 1 在2006年电影版的《时尚女魔头》中，梅丽尔•斯特里普扮演的米兰达•普雷斯丽责备她其貌不扬的女助手，因为她认为高端时尚并不能影响到自己。普雷斯丽说明了她助手的深蓝色毛衣如何在数年间从时尚秀场降到百货商店，又沦为便宜货。毫无疑问，这个贫穷的女孩肯定就是从便宜货里淘的衣服。

这种自上而下的时尚商业观早已过时了，也和伊丽莎白•克莱因在《过度穿着》中描写的狂热世界不一致。《过度穿着》是伊丽莎白•克莱因花了三年时间写成的对 “快时尚”的控诉作品。在过去十年左右的时间，技术的进步已经使得诸如Zara、H&M、优衣库之类的大众市场品牌能够对流行趋势反应得更快，并能更准确的预料到消费者的需求。更快的转变意味着更少的存货浪费、更频繁的发布新品、更高的利润。这些品牌鼓励对时尚敏感的消费者把衣服当成是一次性用品——洗过一两次后就不再穿了，尽管他们没在广告上明说——然后每几周就更新衣橱。克莱因说，这些品牌通过以极其低廉的价格销售时髦的商品，已经把持了时尚的周期，动摇了一个习惯以季节为周期的产业。

当然，这场变革的受害者，不仅仅是设计师们。为了能在其全世界2300多家商店里以5.95美元的价格出售超短裙，H&M必须依赖低工资的海外劳动力、大批量采购原材料导致严重危害自然资源、并大量使用有害的化学物质。

《过度穿着》就仿佛是时尚界交给像迈克尔•波伦的《杂食者的困境》一样的消费者维权畅销书的答案。“大批量生产的服装，就好像快餐一样，充满着渴望和需求，却既不耐用也不经济”，克莱因说到。她发现，美国人每年要买大约200亿件服装——平均每人64件——无论他们捐赠多少，这种无节制的购买行为都导致浪费。

在《过度穿着》的结尾，克莱因介绍了她的理想典范，一个叫萨拉•凯特•博蒙特的布鲁克林女人，她从2008年起就自己做所有的衣服，而且做得相当漂亮。不过正如克莱因是第一个注意到的那样，博蒙特花了几十年完善自己的手艺，她的事例不能轻易复制。

尽管包括H&M在内的几家快时尚公司已经努力控制其对劳动力和环境的影响，引入了绿色环保自觉生产线，克莱因相信只有消费者才能促成持久的变革。她展示了对于无论在食物还是在能源方面都提倡可持续性的人而言共同的理想主义。虚荣是常态，人们只有在付不起钱的时候才会开始以更加可持续的方式购物。

Text 2

An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted—the trouble is, no one knows which half.In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced.By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained informa-tion: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?

In December 2010 America’s Federal Trade Commission(FTC)proposed adding a “do not track”(DNT)option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be fol-lowed.Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Apple’s Safari both offer DNT;Google’s Chrome is due to do so this year.In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance(DAA)agreed that the industry would get cracking on responding to DNT requests.On May 31st Microsoft set off the row.It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with windows 8, would have DNT as a default.Advertis-ers are horrified.Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings.Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off.Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Associa-tion of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect informa-tion about their preferences.People will not get fewer ads, he says.“They’ll get less meaningful, less targeted ads.”

It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond.Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so.Unable to tell whether someone real-ly objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft’s default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.Al-so unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone.After all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comp-ly with DNT requests, though it is still working out how.If it is trying to upset Google, which relies al-most wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: There is no guarantee that DNT by de-fault will become the norm.DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8—though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google’s on that count be-fore.Brendon Lynch, Microsoft’s chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple? 有句老话说的好，一半的广告预算都浪费了——麻烦的是，没人知道哪一半浪费了。在互联网时代，至少在理论上，可以大大减少这种浪费。通过观察人们搜索什么、点击什么、在网上说些什么，公司可以锁定目标，将“行为”广告（即，“有作为的”或“有用的”广告）投放给最有可能的购买产品的人。

在过去几周，三次交易和一次争论已经向广告商（以及他们的软件提供商）展示了这种经过精细处理的信息的价值：广告商应该假设人们喜欢被跟踪，并发送行为广告吗？还是他们应该先得到明确的许可才行？

在2010年12月，美国联邦贸易委员会提出，应该在网络浏览器上添加“拒绝跟踪”（DNT）选项，这样一来，用户就可以告诉广告商他们不想被追踪。微软公司的IE浏览器和苹果公司的Safari浏览器都提供拒绝跟踪；谷歌公司的Chrome浏览器今年也即将要提供类似功能。在二月份，联邦贸易委员会和数字广告联盟达成一致，浏览器开发业要继续努力，以应对拒绝跟踪的要求。

5月31日，微软公司率先采取行动：该公司发布公告称，在该公司的新操作系统windows8中的IE10浏览器上，将会默认附带拒绝跟踪选项。

广告商们诚惶诚恐。人性使然，人们总是习惯保持默认的设置。现在几乎没人打开“拒绝跟踪”按钮，可如果跟踪处于关闭状态，就会一直是关闭状态。鲍勃•利奥狄斯是数字广告联盟的成员组织之一——全国广告协会——的首席执行官。他说如果软件业无法收集到关于消费者喜好的信息，那消费者只能境况更糟。人们不会少收到广告，他说，“他们会收到更没意义更没针对性的广告。”

现在还不清楚广告商们会怎样采取行动。拒绝跟踪信号并不会强制任何人停止跟踪，尽管有些公司（包括推特公司在内）已经承诺收到拒绝跟踪信号就会停止跟踪。由于无法辨认人们是真正反对行为广告，还是他们只是没有改动微软的默认设置，有些公司可能会忽视拒绝跟踪信号，依然强行跟踪。

同样不清楚的是，微软为什么要孤军奋战。毕竟，微软自己也有广告业务，却声称自己的广告业务也要遵守拒绝跟踪要求，不过它也还在寻求解决办法。如果微软试图激怒几乎完全依赖广告业务的谷歌，那么它就已经选择了一个间接的方法：并不能保证默认拒绝跟踪模式会成为标准范例。虽然公司以前还拿自己的其他几个产品同谷歌的产品在这方面做过比较，但拒绝跟踪也不像是windows8的巨大卖点。微软首席隐私官布兰登•林奇在博客中写到：“我们相信用户应该有更多的操控权限。”真是那么简单吗？

Text 3

Up until a few decades ago, our visions of the future were largely — though by no means uniformly — glowingly positive.Science and technology would cure all the ills of humanity, leading to lives of fulfillment and opportunity for all.Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to epidemic flu to climate change.You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little future to look forward to.But such gloominess is misplaced.The fossil record shows that many species have endured for millions of years — so why shouldn’t we? Take a broader look at our species’ place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years.Look up Homo sapiens in the “Red List” of threatened species of the International Union for the Conversation of Nature(IUCN), and you will read: “Listed as Least Con-cern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently increasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population decline.”

So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and organisations are now think-ing seriously about that question.For example, the Long Now Foundation has as its flagship project a mechanical clock that is designed to still be marking time thousands of years hence.Per-haps willfully, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales than about the more immediate future.The potential evolution of today’s technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it’s perhaps best left to science fiction writers and futurologists to explore the many possibilities we can envisage.That’s one reason why we have launched Arc, a new publication dedicated to the near future.But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say with considerable assurance.As so often, the past holds the key to the future: we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the situations in which our descendants will find themselves.This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more likely to be a passing fad.To be sure, the future is not all rosy.But we are now knowledgeable enough to re-duce many of the risks that threatened the existence of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come.Text 3

直到几十年前，我们对未来的想象虽千奇百怪，却大都很积极乐观。科学和技术可以治愈人类所有的疾病，让人们过上满足的生活，让人人都有机会。

现如今这种空想的美好社会已经过时了，我们对面临的威胁范围有了更深刻的认识，从行星撞击到流行感冒到气候变化。你可能忍不住会想，人类都没有什么未来值得盼望了。

但是这种沮丧的情绪也不应该。化石资料表明很多物种存活了几百万年——那么我们怎么就不能活那么久呢？眼光放宽一点，想想我们这个物种在宇宙中的位置，就很容易发现，哪怕不能活上几十万年，我们也很可能活上几万年。查阅一下国际自然保护联盟发布的濒危物种红名单上对我们人类（智人）的描述，你会读到：非危物种，因为该物种分布很广，适应性强，目前数量呈上升趋势，且没有造成其总体数量下降的主要威胁。

那么，我们的未来究竟承载着什么呢？越来越多的研究者和机构现在正在仔细思考这个问题。比如，今日永存基金会的首要项目就是设计一个今后几千年仍然可以度量时间的医疗时钟。

思考这么大跨度的时间概念可能本来就比琢磨眼下的将来更容易许多。今日的技术如何演变，以及由此带来的社会影响，实在纷繁复杂，让人炫目。最好还是让科幻作家和未来学家去设想那些诸多可能发生的事情吧。这也是我们为什么发行Arc的原因之一。Arc是致力于研究近期未来的全新出版物。

但是眼光放长远些，我们能确信的事情就数量惊人了。过去是未来的关键：我们现在已经知道星球以及我们人类的历史怎样经历长时间的变化，那么我们就能以此为依据，预知后世子孙未来身处的境地。

这种长远角度使得悲观的前景预期看似更为过时。的确，未来不都那么美好。但是我们现在有足够的知识可以减少曾威胁人类早期生存的同类威胁，并改善未

Text 4

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitution-al principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Jus-tice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.Howev-er, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitution-al logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the WhiteHouse claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the bor-ders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either.Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.Text 4

周一，最高法院以5比3的投票结果否决了亚利桑那州移民法的大部分内容——这是奥巴马政府所采取政策的一次不大不小的胜利。但是在更重要的（事关国之根本这个）国家宪法的大问题上，投票结果却是8比0。这个决定意味着联邦政府打破联邦政府和各州政府权力平衡的努力彻底失败了。

在这场亚利桑那州政府和美国政府的对峙中，最高法院以多数票通过推翻了亚利桑那州饱受争议的计划中四项有争议条款中的三项。亚利桑那州本计划让州警察和地方警察实施联邦移民法。宪法规定华盛顿自身有权力“制定统一的移民规则”，这和联邦法律优先于州法律的规定并不矛盾。亚利桑那州企图改变该州现行的与联邦法律一致的政策。

安东尼•肯尼迪大法官同约翰•罗伯特首席大法官和法庭的自由派们一起裁定州政府的做法不对。关于被推翻的条款，大多数人的观点是，州议会已经故意“占领地盘”了，也就是说亚利桑那州侵犯了联邦的特权。

然而，大法官们说，亚利桑那州警察有权力在执法过程中核实人们的法律身份。因为国会一直期待能联合联邦和各州的力量处理移民问题，并公开鼓励州警官和联邦警官共享信息，相互合作。

三名持反对意见的大法官中，有两人——塞缪尔•阿利托和克拉伦斯•托马斯赞同宪法的逻辑思路，却不同意亚利桑那州的规定违反联邦法规的说法。唯一主要的反对意见来自安东宁•斯卡利亚大法官，他强烈维护州的权益不受联邦干预，甚至提到了客籍法和镇压叛乱法。

用大法官塞缪尔•阿利托在他的反对意见中的话说，以8比0否决奥巴马的判决源自“一项惊人的维护联邦行政权的主张”。白宫声称，亚利桑那州的法律与其执法优先权相冲突，即使州法律严格遵守了联邦法律。实际上，白宫就是在声明，它将作废任何联邦不赞成的合法的州级法律。

有些权力确实归联邦政府独有，控制国籍和国界就是如此。但是如果国会想阻止各州使用自己的资源查看移民身份的话，国会是可以这么做的。可国会从没有这么做过。美国政府事实上就是在宣称，因为它不想实现国会的移民主张，哪一个州也不可以这么做。每一位大法官都端正的反对了这样的主张。

2012年考研英语阅读真题 Text 1

Come on –Everybody’s doing it.That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure.It usually leads to no good-drinking, drugs and casual sex.But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and offi-cials use the power of group dynamics to help inpiduals improve their lives and possibly the word.Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of

exam-ple of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool.In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.The idea seems promising，and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer.Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a serious-ly flawed understanding of psychology.” Dare to be different, please don’t smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in.Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.But on the general effectiveness of the soci-al cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive.Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful.The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it’s presented here is that it doesn’t work very well for very long.Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut.Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior.An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication.This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imi-tate the behavior we see every day.Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions.It’s like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates.The tactic never really works.And that’s the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.赶快，每个人都在做!当我们听到“来自同辈的压力”这个短语时，大部分人都会想到这个广为流传的，半是邀请、半是强迫的信息。一般来讲指的都不是好事—酗酒，吸毒，随意的性行为。但是Tina Rosenberg在新书JointheClub中辩护到，通过社会治疗这一方式，来自同辈的压力也可以成为正面积极的力量。在这个社会治疗中，各个机构和行政人员利用团队力量帮助个人改善他们的生活，这样还有可能改善整个世界。普利策奖获得者Rosenberg提供了大量正在进行中的社会治疗的例子：在南卡罗来纳，州资助的反对吸烟活动名叫RageAgainsttheHaze，它打算让吸烟不再流行。在南非，名为Love Life的预防HIV感染的活动招募年轻人在他们的同龄人中提倡安全性行为。这一想法似乎充满希望，Rosenberg是个有洞察力的观察着。她准确地批评了很多公共卫生活动的不完善：这些活动没有动员同龄人形成健康的习惯，对青少年心理的理解有严重误区。其中一个广告牌活动致力于在青少年中减少抽烟量，上面写着：“勇于特立独行，请不要抽烟!”—而青少年，渴望的就是和他人保持一致。Rosenberg争论到，公共卫生提倡者应该向广告商学习，他们能如此熟练地运用来自同辈的压力。这一论点很具说服力。但是在社会治疗的整体效力上，Rosenberg并不太具说服力。JointheClub里面有太多毫不相关的细节，促使来自同辈的压力如此强大的社会、生物因素却剖析地不够。正如现在所呈现的，社会治疗最引人注目的缺陷是：如果持续时间很久，它的效果并不好。一旦州砍掉资金，RageAgainsttheHaze就失败了。证据显示，Love Life项目所产生的长远变化是有限的，而且混杂其他因素。同龄人给我们的行为带来了巨大的影响，这是毫无疑问的。大量刚刚出炉的研究表明，正面积极的健康习惯——还有负面消极的——通过社会交流在朋友网中流传。这是来自同辈的压力更为微妙的形式：我们无意识地模仿每天看到的行为。专家和政府人员该如何成功地选择同龄人团队并引导他们的行为朝着有德行的方向发展，这远远不能确定。这就像老师把后排制造麻烦的学生和表现良好的学生放在一起，以此来解散麻烦制造者团队，这样的技巧从不真正起作用。从外部因素出发策划的社会治疗也有这一问题：在真实世界中，就像在学校，我们坚持选择自己的朋友。Text2

Text 2

A deal is a deal-except, apparently, when Entergy is involved.The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.In-stead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionali-ty of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuc-lear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then, too, the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those

commit-ments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management– especial-ly after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legisla-tion, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulato-ry authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regula-tions that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, includ-ing Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC)reviews the company’s application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.承诺就是承诺—很明显，当Entergy公司牵涉在内的话就除外。这个公司是新英格兰主要的能源供应商，它曾承诺要一直遵守严格的核能源规范条例，但上周它宣布要违背这个承诺，理所当然地，它激起了佛蒙特州的义愤。这个公司确实已做了它曾承诺的永远不会做的事情：在联邦法庭上挑战佛蒙特州条例的合宪性，拼命努力来保证佛蒙特州美国核能源工厂的正常运行。这一举动令人震惊。2002年公司购买了佛蒙特州唯一的核能源工厂，即位于弗农古老的核反应堆。自此，冲突开始浮出水面。公司同意2012年之后都会寻求本州调整者的许可，作为接受本州同意销售的条件。2006年，佛蒙特更进一步，要求延长这一核工厂的许可证必须得到佛蒙特州立法机关的许可。公司也同意了。Entergy可能不想真正地遵守这些承诺，或者简单来说它并没有预见将要发生的事情。一系列事故，如207冷却塔部分坍塌，发现地下管道系统漏泄，这些都引发了关于佛蒙特州美国人的安全及Entergy公司经营等方面的严重问题—尤其在公司关于管道问题做了令人误解的声明之后。因Entergy的所作所为而震怒，去年佛蒙特州参议院以26:4的选票结果，反对允许延长它的许可证。现在公司突然宣布，因2006法规2002协议无效，只有联邦政府才有权调控核事件。这一案例中的法律问题模糊不清：最高法院曾宣布各州确实对核能源有调控权力，但法律学者认为佛蒙特案件将验证这些权力到底有多大。当然，如果每一个州都设定自己的法律条例，由此而导致的混乱确实能引起合理的关注。但是如果Entergy信守诺言，那这场争论就偏离主题了。公司似乎下了这样的论断：它在佛蒙特的声望已被损害，即使与佛蒙特州作战也没什么好失去的。但是这有一定的后果。允许经营核工厂体现了公众的信任。在美国Entergy还经营了其他11个反应堆，包括普利茅斯的Pilgrim核电站。公司承诺安全经营Pilgrim，已向联邦提出申请，要求再经营20年。但是当核管理委员会审查了公司的申请时，应该记住Entergy的承诺能有什么样的价值。

Text3

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take.Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as

protos-cience.Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential.But it takes collective scruti-ny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.This is the credibility pro-cess, through which the inpidual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime.Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next.Within the complex social struc-ture of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries;editors and reviewers act as gatekee-pers by controlling the publication process;other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purpos-es;and finally, the public(including other scientists)receives the new discovery and possibly accompany-ing technology.As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confronta-tion between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an inpidual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompa-nies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search, not re-search.Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.” 在科学研究的理想状态下，关于世界的事实正在等待着那些客观的研究者来观察和搜集，研究者们会用科学的方法来进行他们的工作。但是在每天的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊和复杂的路径。我们的目标是做到客观，但是我们却不能逃离我们所处的独特的生活经验的环境。之前的知识和兴趣会影响我们所经历的，会影响我们对于经验意义的思考，以及我们会采取的随后的行动。这里充满着误读，错误和自我欺骗的机会。所以，对于发现的申明应该被当做是科学的原型。这与新近开发的采矿资源比较类似，他们都充满着可能性。但是将发现的申明变为一个成熟的发现是需要集体的审查和集体的接受。这个过程就配称之为“信用的过程”，通过这个过程一个单个研究者的“我”在这里就变成了这个社区中的任何人，任何地方和任何时间。客观的知识不应该是起点而是目标。一旦一个科学发现变成公开的，那么发现者就获得了知识的认可。但是和采矿权不一样的是，科学协会将控制接下来会发生的事情。在复杂的科研机构的社会结构中，研究者去做出发现；编辑和审稿者通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色；其他的科学家使用新的发现来满足他们自己的目标；最后，公众（也包括其他科学家）接受到新的发现和可能相伴随的技术。当一个发现的声明最终通过了机构的审查，在有关所涉及到的共享的和抵触的信念之间的互动和冲突将把一个人的发现变为一个机构的可信的发现在整个信任的过程中存在着两个悖论，第一：科学工作倾向于关注一些流行科学的某些方面，而这些方面又是被认为是不完全和不正确的。去复制和确认已经被人所知和所信的东西不会有多少回报。科学要做的是去探究新的东西而不是再次探究。不足为奇的是，新发表的重要的，有说服力发现和可信的发现将会被后来的研究者质疑，并带来潜在的修改甚至驳斥。第二个悖论是：新颖的东西本身就经常会招致怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者，生理学家AlbertAzent-Gyorgyi曾经将发现描述为：“观察每个人观察的，思考没有人想到的。”但是思考其他人没有想到的并且告诉其他人他们所遗漏的可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候，真正新颖的科学发现被人们所接受和认可将会花好多年的时间。最后，一个科学的发现获得了信任，这个过程是与哲学家AnnetteBaier所描述的心灵的共性的观点是一致的。“我们共同去推理，去质疑，其修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。Text4

Text 4

If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servant.When Hoffa’s Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a