Part of the scientific faith of the late nineteenth century was the view that there was one and only one scientific method.This method，argued writers like Karl Pearson in his Grammar of Science，was the only sure method for arriving at knowledge in any sphere.The method was easily described： collect the facts in the area under study;order them into sequences，such that law like occurrences could be seen;then，write down the laws so identified.According to this view，disciplines differed only as to subject matter，since the unity of science consisted of its method alone.Also，according to this view，the results of scientific investigation(that is，new knowledge)will always be embodied in the form of a law connecting the facts in the area under study.
Explanation，according to this view，is simply accounting for facts on the basis of a deduction from a known law or laws，or accounting for some subordinate law on the basis of a deduction from some more general law or laws.The most influential formulation of this explanation is Carl G Hempel‘s， perhaps most accessibly articulated in his article“Explanation in Science and History”。Sometimes，according to Hempel，such laws are of a strictly universal form and other times they are of a probabilistic or statistical form.They are assertions，in this latter case，of the kind that if certain specified conditions are realized then an occurrence of such and such a kind will come about with such a probability.
I think that it would be true to say that in the late nineteenth century it was felt that one feature distinguishing physics from history as a discipline was that，even if they shared exactly the same method，physics had no need for the latter kind of probabilistic explanation——at least in principle——while in history it was unavoidable.
However，in the twentieth century，whatever else may distinguish physics and history as disciplines it is not that physics uses only strictly universal laws and deductive explanations in the nineteenth century sense，while history does not.The physics of the century，from 1 900 onward，has been interested in aggregates of certain classes of physical individuals(the particles)and in accounts of the individuals that would enable one to understand the aggregates.As a consequence partly of this interest in statistical data pertaining to the very small，as well as for a number of other reasons，physicists have tended to formulate the mechanics of the very small in terms of equations in which probabilistic notions are fundamental.
1. According to Karl Pearson，only one scientific method——。
[A J prevailed in every field of study during 1890s
[B]directed the collection and arrangement of facts
[C]served as a unique element uniting all disciplines
[D]made the identification of new knowledge plausible
2. As stated by Hempel，general laws are——。
[A]based on detailed accounts of actual facts
[B]composed of subordinate laws by deduction
[C]realized in probabilistic or statistic form
[D]applied to all cases or under certain conditions
3. The author feels sure of the truth that in 19th century———————
[A]physics and history shared a common feature
[B]the same method blended history with ph)rsics
[C]statistical laws were compatible with physics
[D]probabilistic method was inapplicable to history
4. In the 20th century， it was true that—————————
[A]universal laws ceased to belong merely to physics
[B]deductive explanations became dominant in history
[C]distinction between history and physics turned obscure
[D]statistical explanations were adopted by physicists
5. In the study of physical particles_____
[A]statistical information accounts for the interest in aggregates
[B]probabilistic conceptions result from their formulation
[C] description of their mechanics is based on statistical data
[D]physical equations are accountable for probabilistic ideas
核心词汇
sphere n.范围，领域
subordinate adj.从属的
probability n.可能性
sequence n.次序，顺序
articulate vt.清晰地表达
consequence n.结果
embody vt.使具体化
statistical adj.统计的
formulate vt.用公式表示
19世纪末期的科学信仰中包括这样一种观点，即世界上有且仅有一种科学方法。一些作家指出(如卡尔。皮尔逊在其著作《科学的语法》中写道)：这种方法是惟一一种在任何领域都可获得知识的有效方法。这种方法描述起来十分容易：通过调查研究后，在该领域收集事实;将这些事实按顺序排好，以保证根据所发生的事件总结出定律;然后，将所发现的定律写下来。根据这种观点，既然科学是统一的，并且只包含这惟一一种方法，因此各个学科的区别仅仅在于内容的不同。同样，根据这种观点，科研调查的结果(也就是新知识)永远都是以在该领域进行调查的前提下连接各类事实的定律的形式所体现出来的。
根据这种观点，解释仅仅是在演绎的基础上说明事实，而这种演绎来自于著名的定律，或者是在演绎的基础上说明某种从属定律，这种演绎来自于更普遍的定律。关于解释最具影响力的确切表达来自于卡尔吉。亨普尔，在他的《科学与历史中的解释》一文中表述得很清楚。根据亨普尔的观点，有的时候，这些定律有着十分严格的共同形式;其他时候，这些定律体现的则是概率或是统计数字的形式，这种情况下，这些定律属于论断，即如果满足某些具体条件，某种结果便会依某种概率而发生。
在19世纪末期，人们认为物理作为一门学科，与历史相比，一个明显区别就是即使两种学科均使用同一种方法，但至少从原则上讲，物理没有必要进行概率解释，而历史这门学科则不可避免。我个人认为这种说法是正确的。
但是，在20世纪，不论还有些什么别的特征可能用来区分物理学与历史学这两门学科，从以下角度加以区分肯定是不对的：物理学只是严格运用19世纪那个意义上的普遍规律和演绎性解释，而历史学并非如此。从1900年以后，20世纪的物理研究兴趣主要在于某些种类的物质个体(粒子)的总计及对这些物质个体的解释以便人们了解这种总计。部分地由于物理学对于微观世界的统计数据的兴趣，同时也由于很多其他相关原因，物理学家们倾向于用方程式来阐述微观世界的力学原理，而在这些方程式中，有关概率的概念是最基础的。
1. c推断题。由题干关键词Karl Pearson定位文章第一段。根据第二句之后的内容，可立即排除A(流行于每一个研究领域);题干中的According to Karl Pearson相当于第四句的According to this View，因此可将答案锁定在此句，推断可知c与其内容一致，是正确答案;B(指导事实论据的搜集和整理)不全面;D中的plausible(似是而非的)是一种不确定的说法，不合文意。
2. D推断题。由题干中关键词Hempel定位第二段第三、四句，其中的such laws即general laws(普遍规律)。选项D概括了这两句的内容，all cases相当于第三句中的universal from(普遍型)，certain conditions即specified conditions(特定情况)。A(基于对事实的详细说明)、B(由演绎得出的从属定律构成)两项指的是explanation;C不全面，只是指general laws中的一种，即概率型或统计型。
3. A推断题。题干中的The author feels相当于第三段开头的I think，故答案应在此段之中。A说物理学和历史学有共同特点，即指此段所说的也same method(同样的方法)，故为答案。B(同样的方法把历史学和物理学混为一谈)不合逻辑;C的comparable with(相符的)和D的was inapplicable to(不适用于)皆与句意相悖。
4. D推断题。由题干关键词20m century定位文章最后一段。文中指出用19世纪的普遍规律和演绎性解释来区分物理学和历史学是不对的。由此可知选项A(普遍规律不再只属于物理学)、B(演绎性解释在历史学中占主导地位)、c(历史学和物理学之间的区别变得模糊)是对文章的故意曲解;文章末句说，物理学家往往用方程式来阐述微观世界的力学原理，而方程式的基础就是概率概念，故推断可知D正确。
5. C推断题。由题干关键词physical particles定位最后一段第二、三句，其中提到20世纪的物理研究兴趣主要在于某些种类的物质个体的总计及对这些物质个体的解释以便人们了解这种总计，由此可知A(统计信息说明人们对总计的兴趣)因果颠倒;文中说物理学家们倾向于用方程式来阐述微观世界的力学原理，而在这些方程式中，有关概率的概念是最基础的，言外之意，微观世界的描述是以概率的概念为基础的，由此可知B(概率的概念由方程式而生)本末倒置，D(物理方程式可以解释概率理念)因果颠倒，而c(对其力学原理的描述基于统计数据)正确。
热门推荐：
