In real laboratories

In the end, Lavoisier won the dispute with Priestley. The chemistry student in Las Palmas is producing oxygen at one electrode and hydrogen at another when the electrolyses water, not manipulating phlogiston. But Lavoisier's triumph was not that he "falsified" Priestley; it was that he set up a theoretical system that other chemists thought could offer them better ways of thinking about the world than Priestley's ideas could. Thomas Kuhn, whose theory of scientific progress through conceptual revolutions has proved immensely influential, argues that it is through changing the meaning of experimental work that fundamental changes are brought about.

On a more everyday level, disagreements about experiment may have less to do with grand theory than with prejudice and hearsay. Harry Collins, a sociologist, has recorded scientists' frank opinions of their colleagues:

Scientists 1: … he is at a very small place… (but) … I have looked at his data, and he certainly has soma interesting data.

Scientists 2: I am not really impressed with his experimental capabilities, so I would question anything he more that I would question other people's.

Scientists 3: That experiment is a bunch of shit.

Scientists A: Z's experiment is quite interesting, and shouldn't be ruled out just bacause the … group can't repeat it.

Scientists B: I am very unimpressed with the z affair.

Scientists C: Then there's z. Now the z thing is an out and out fraud.

This is hardly objective, but it is clearly practical. Beliefs about an experimenter's skill, and sometimes honesty, can take on phenomenal importance. Dr. Collins's scientists were discussing gravity-wave detectors, at a time when there was a great deal of doubt about whether the detection of gravity waves was possible. No one was sure what the "right" answer was, so nobody knew whether their experiment worked or not; and without experiments that worked to everybody's satisfaction, no one could be sure what the right answer was.

Dr. Collins calls this vicious circle the "experimenter's regress". There is no objective way out of it, just as there was no objective way to decide between the work of Lavoisier and Priestley on Mercury. Yet the regress can be reversed, through the bargaining, ground - giving and formation of alliances that are common in all sorts of social interactions. That does not mean that all experimental results are "just matters of opinion". Changing people's minds about experiments is exceedingly hard. But that is because the ways in which experiments are made to count, the experimental techniques which are considered acceptable, the people who are considered competent and skilled, are all issued that scientists have worked hard to settle. The system produces reliable knowledge about the world: that, after all, is the point.

 

Exercises:

1. Read the given before texts.

2. State the main idea of them.

3. Write a logical plan to each text.

4. Find key sentences in every paragraph.

5. Make up a summary and an abstract to all the given texts.

 

Text 13

Laboratory for the human environment

(John B. Pierce Foundation)

The three-story red-brick building on Congress Avenue in New Haven, Connecticut, is next to the Yale University Medical School.

The legend on the column-supported architrave reasds: "John B. Pierce Foundation Laboratory". The bronze statue standing on the triangular patch of lawn to the right of the building is of John B. Pierce himself, the American Standard Radiator Company president who gave his estate to start the foundation with bears his name.

"Bio-engineering" is the key word in the activities and interests of the Pierce Laboratory denoting its basic orientation towards the fields of physiology, biophysics, biochemistry and engineering research.

In 1962 a grant from the National Institute of health made possible an expansion of the original two-story structure in New Haven, completed in 1933, and a one story annex in 1937 to a three-story building.

The original building contained two test houses designed for the simultaneous study of building construction and physiological comfort.

These facilities still exist with considerable modernization. The present facilities contain laboratories for biophysics, environmental physiology, bioclimatology and psychology as well as computer and data reduction centre.

Under the guidance of Dr. H. T. Hammel, head of the Physiology Laboratory, experiments have been under way to determine the effect of heating and cooling upon the brain. These experiments have been performed at the Laboratory upon monkeys, rats and dogs.

In the Bio-engineering Laboratory, directly headed by Dr. Gadge, work is going forward under the direction of Dr. Arend Bouhuys on the effects of dust on guineapig lungs.

Closely allied in its work with the Yale University Medical School (many of the Pierce Laboratory staff hold faculty appointments and participate in the Yale teaching and research programs) much of the Laboratory's effort has direct educational results, especially in its concept of bio-engineering.

Many technical papers and reports result from the research accomplished at the Laboratory and a notable number of papers have appeared in publications, having been presented at national meetings of the Society.

 

Exercises 1.Answer the following questions.

 

A

1. What does the Laboratory for the Human Environment look like?

2. Where if the Laboratory situated?

3. What does the legend on the architrave read?

4. Where does the statue of John B. Pierce stand?

5. What was J. B. Pierce famous for?

6. Whose name does the Laboratory bear?

7. When was the Laboratory expanded?

8. What was added to a three-story building in 1938?

9. What were the test houses designed for?

10. Was the modernization of the old facilities considerable?

11. Who is the head of the Physiology Laboratory?

12. Under whose guidance have the experiments been under way at this laboratory?

13. What was the purpose of these experiments?

14. What were the results of the research performed at the Laboratory?

15. What was presented at national meetings of the Society?

 

B

16. Where is your Institute situated?

17. What kind of building does your Institute occupy?

18. What if the historical background of your Institute?

19. Whose name does your Institute bear?

20. What is the main orientation of the laboratory you work at?

21. Was your Institute reconstructed or rebuilt recently?

22. How many laboratories does your Institute contain?

23. Who is the head of your laboratory?

24. What kind of experiments do they perform at your laboratory?

25. What laboratory is closely connected with yours in its work?

26. How does the staff of your laboratory participate in the research program of the Institute?

27. How many scientific papers resulted from the research accomplished at your laboratory?

 

C

1. Translate the given text into Russian.

2. Write down the summary of the text.

3. Name the present facilities of the laboratory.

 

Text 14

The Environment:

Problems and solutions

Look through the text and write an outline of three sentences (a sentence per paragraph), either in English or in Russian.

 

1. Should any one attempt a brief characterization of the present-day environment problems he would find it beyond the competence of an individual scientist. For the environmental situation has long become a subject of separate and joint research efforts of biologists, chemists, and biochemists who have to combine their knowledge with the information supplied by students of geology, oceanography and meteorology, with experts in sociology, philology and philosophy hurriedly joining in. Yet, if stated briefly, one of the causes of the present-day environment al situation should be sought in the lack of a balanced development of particular fields of knowledge, and of an adequate picture of the intricately operating whole which is our planet. The rapid and ever-growing advances in certain highly specialized fields have brought mankind far ahead of our general fundamental knowledge of the long-range effect of some technological developments, spectacular thought they may appear, especially of their interplay and interdependence. It is man's intervention in nature that has singled him out from the rest of the animal world since his early days. It is this very intervention that has landed him nowadays in this highly technological world of ours, with the rate of progress in particular applied fields being faster than that in our fundamental knowledge of the general operation of the Earth. It is precisely this discrepancy between the two rates which seems to be at the root of most of today's problems. This is by no means an exhaustive explanation, ignoring as it does, the social factor.

2. The threat to his environment is a second major problem man is faced with in the mid-20th centry, the first being a menace of a nuclear catastrophe. What is so peculiar about the environmental problem when compared to the other one? Surely not its global character and everybody's involvement. A nuclear catastrophe, as seen nowadays by practically everybody everywhere, would inevitably involve every country, no matter how small or big it is, and would concern every individual, whatever secluded life he might be living. Should it happen, its inescapability is too obvious to be disputed. So is its explosive character. In contrast to this, the environmental crisis is of a cumulative nature. It is just the obscure and intricate pattern of the interaction of all factors that makes it so dangerous. For no single action taken, or decision made, can bring about an immediate catastrophe nor could there be the last straw or the last step that would set in motion an avalanche of irreversible and immediate events leading to the ultimate gloomy end, it is only step by step that we approach the critical point, were there such a thing as "point" in this context.

3. Consequently, what is needed first and foremost is that we realize the possible adverse impact of the long-range effects of our actions, however noble the motives may seem to us at present, on the entire human race. Out of this realization may come an entirely new approach to the problem, the new approach as proclaimed by Vernadsky of the biosphere governed and operated in accordance with the laws of the human mind. Next comes the urgent need for basic research to get more profound knowledge of the cause-effect relationship, the time factor necessarily taken into account, in the whole realm of human environment, both natural, man-disturbed and man-initiated. Fundamental and irreversible as they may often be, the changes in our environment are not likely to bring mankind to the brink of annihilation overnight. In would take us some time yet to reach there. So let us use the time for learning how to preserve out planet in good shape and in running order for an indefinitely long time.

 

Read paragraph 1.

 

1. Identify the topic sentence. Try to identify the words which may be somehow associated with the idea expressed by "chatacterization". Identify four cases of contrast or comparison (use attributes as your guide), to be able to state one of the causes of the present-day environmental problems.

2. What is meant by "the intricately operating whole"?

3. Find the words equivalent to: недостаточно равномерное развитие конкретных областей знания и правильного представления о сложном взаимодействии процессов, происходящих внутри единого целого.

4. Give Russian equivalents of: spectacular though they may appear; it is very intervention that has landed him …; ignoring as it does.

 

Read paragraph 2.

 

1. Follow the words a nuclear catastrophe and the environmental problem through their transformations into pronouns. Compare the characteristics of a nuclear catastrophe and the environmental crisis to see their common and different features. State the main idea of the paragraph.

2. Find the words equivalent to: невозможность скрыться от; характер постепенного нарастания; скрытый и сложный механизм взаимодействия.

3. Identify the words used by the author to express the idea of "danger"; "inescapability"; "cumulative nature"; "critical point".

4. Give Russian equivalents of: no matter how small or big it is; ehatever secluded life hw might be living; should it happen; for no single action taken, or decision made, can bring about…; an avalanche of irreversible and immediate events.

 

Read paragraph 3.

 

1. Identify the topic sentence. State the most urgent needs of the situation.

2. What is meant by "the new approach", "to reach there" and "the time"?

3. Give Russian equivalents of: first and foremost; however noble the motives may seem to us; to bring mankind to the brink of annihilation overnight; it would take us some time yet to reach there.

 

Read the text again and suggest a title to each paragraph.

 

Text 15

Averages

 

You cannot get far in economics or politics without using statistics. And you cannot get far in statistics without using an average, for example, the average wage of a woman in the engineering industry, or the average age at death of an antracite miner.

Now an average has two functions. First of all, it is representative. It gives one an idea of the size of a fairy typical member of the group and makes a comparison between groups possible.

One can say at once that, on the whole, women in the British engineering industry get less that men, but a very great deal more that men in the Indian industry. Similarly anthracite miners on the whole do not live so long as other coal miners, but live longer than slate quarriers.

Secondly, the average, tells you exactly what share each individual would get of money, land, or any commodity which can be divided up, if it were shared out equally. It is much easier to understand that the national income is £ 100 each, on an average, for 40,000,000 people, that itis £ 4,000,000,000.

Now, when you know the average, you can answer the second question exactly. But the average is not necessarily representative.

Suppose there are two villages each with twenty families. In the first village one family has an income of £ 10,000 per year, and nineteen have an income of £150. In the much second village ten families have an income of £ 300 and ten of £200.

Then the average family income in the first village in £ 642 10s., in the second it is £ 250. Yet on the whole the people in the second village are richer. If you pick a family art random from each village it is nineteen to one that the family from the second village will be richer. We can only say that the first village would be richer if the incomes were divided evenly; but that is a big "if".

How can we choose a representative value so as to get ever fallacies of this kind? Instead of the average we choose what is called the median. If you stand 101 men in a row in order of tallness and then measure the height of the middle man, you get a height which is often more representative than the average. There are as many taller than the median height as there are shorter than it.

In the first village the median income would be £ 150, in the second between £ 200 and £ 300.

Another advantage of the median is that it enables you to give a representative value for qualities which cannot be measured, but which can be put in order.

I am probably less musical than most of my readers, and better at mathematics. But there is no sense in saying that I am half as musical as you, or three times as mathematical.

But we could apply simple tests of musical ability to a hundred people taken at random, and I would probably be in the worst ten. One could take the middle person in such a sample as a representative.

Sometimes, but not always, the mean, or average, is roughly equal to the median. This is so for heights of human adults, but it is not so for weights.

The average weight of Englishmen about 1880 was 156 lbs. But the median was only 147 lbs. This is because in a sample of 8,000 men there were some very fat ones.

Ten weighed over 250 lbs., whereas none weighed under 90 lbs. So the fat men helped up the average, but each counted no more for the median than if they had weighed only, say, 200 lbs.

In the same way very rich men have a large effect on the average income, but very little on the median. If we these distinctions in mind, we shall avoid being taken in by arguments about averages.

When we have determined our average, or our median, value we next want to know something about the spread round it. Clearly, for example, the spread of human weights is bigger than the spread of heights.

Quite a number of people weigh half as much again as the average, i.e., over 234 lbs. But the average male height is about 5 ft. 8 inches, and a man who measures 8 ft. 4 inches can make a living as a giant in a circus.

Probably the best measure of the spread is by means of what are called the quartiles. If we measure the 26th man from the top and bottom in our row of 101 men arranged according to height, they will give us the upper and lower quartiles.

One-quarter of the heights exceed the upper quartile, one-quarter fall below the lower quartile. In this case the quartiles are about two inches above and below the median.

The difference between quartiles, divided by the median, gives a fair idea of the spread, this is only about six per cent for heights, but probably over a hundred per cent for incomes of English adults.

The total range does not give such a good idea. A sample of a thousand people might happen to include a dwarf or a giant, but probably would not. So the range which includes the middle half or the middle four fifths of the population is more useful.

There is only one case where the extremes matter, and that is when they are socially valuable. One Newton is worth a thousand school teachers with mathematical degrees, one Beetchoven worth a thousand men who can improvise on the piano. It be that in such cases a high range of attainments is more important than a high average.

Of course, statistician have devised a number of other ways of picking out a representative, on the hand, and measuring the spread round it on the other. But if we understand the meaning of an average, and the false conclusions which can be reached by using it wrongly, we shall have made a good start in understanding statistics.

 

Exercises:

1. Translate the headline of the text and find the word-synonim to the term "average".

2. Write down the plan to the text.

3. Write out the general terms used in this text.

4. Suggest a title the each paragraph.

5. Give the summary to the text.

SECTION 2

SCIENCE

   Text 1

     What Science Is

I. Look through the text concentrating on the beginning and the end of each paragraph, write an outline in Russian.

 

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 scientists. It is known that the word science its self 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 "scientists" was introduced only in 1840 by a Cambrige professor of philosophy who wrote: "We need a name for describing a cultivator of science in general. I should be inclined to call him a scientists". "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 reffered to as the "scientists method".

3. Briefly, the following steps can be distinguished in this method. First comes the through that initiates the inquiry. It is known, for example, that in 1896 t6he physicist Henry 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 the 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 mey be used to gather the essential data - from a test-tube to an earth-satellite. It is known that the Curie acountered 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 aleady 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 experted 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 consist in an 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 Curie announced the probable presence in pichblende ores of a new element possesing power ful radioactivity. This was the beginning of the discovery of radium.

7.Then follows the clearer statement of the theory. In December 1898, the Curie 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 mew 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, an 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 wold. Any defects in their arguments would be pointed out to them immediately.

 

Read paragraph 1

 

1. Follow the dominant noun and the words related to it meaning through the paragraph and state the main idea.

2. Give Russian equivalents of: a cumulative body of knowledge, a pecular method practised by the scientists, manufacturing commodities to meet human needs.

 

Read paragraph 1

1. Follow the dominant noun and its equivalents through the paragraph. Identify the sentence which repeats the idea expressed in the first sentence of the text.

2. Identify the words used by the author as equivalent to: направляли свой пытливый ум на …

3. Identify the words used by the author as equivalent tp doing so, a technique of inquiry.

 

Read paragraph 3

 

1. Identify the topic sentence and the illustrating sentences. Among the latter identify the equivalents of nouns and pronouns. Give a Russian equivalent of initiates.

 

Read paragraph 4

 

1. Identify the topic sentence. Follow the words: "the collecting of facts" through their transformations into their equivalents and pronouns.

2. Identify the words equivalents to: столкнуться с трудностями, пробирка, в зависимости от проблемы.

 

Read paragraph 5

 

1. Identify the topic sentence and the illustrating sentences. Find the sentence describing the first step on the way to a hypothesis (What modal verb is used to show that it is only the first step?).

2. Identify the words used by the author as equivalent to: "this was so".

3. Give a Russian equivalent of "emerge". Translate the last sentence of paragraph into Russian.

 

Read paragraph 6

 

1. Identify the topic sentence and the illustrating sentences. Find the sentence describing the next step in the development of the hypothesis (What word shows that it is a hypothesis?). State the function of "that is" and give its Russian equivalent.

2. Translate the first sentence into Russian.

 

Read paragraph 7 and 8

 

1. Identify the topic sentence and the illustrating sentences. Find the sentence describing the final step in the development of the hypothesis.

2. Find the guide words to the author's through equivalent to: несомненно, несмотря на это, на этом основании.

3. Try to explain the autor's choice of the modal verbs.

4. Find the English equivalent of "i.e." paragraph 6.

 

Read paragraph 9

 

1. State the role of deductive reasoning in science. Indicate the words characterizing the conditions under which the Curie worked.

2. Translate paragraph 9 into Russian.

IV. Read the whole text again and see if any corrections should be made in your original outline. Write an abstract of the text in three sentences.

 

Text 2

Scientific method and method of science

Read the text to yourself and be ready for a comprehension check-up.

 

It is sometimes said that there is no such thing as so-called "scientific methods"; there are only the methods used in science. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there is often a special sequence of ptocedures which is involved in the establishment of the working principles of science. This sequence is as follows: (1) a problem is recognized, and as much information as possible is collected; (2) a solution (i.e. a hypothesis) is proposed and the concequences arising out of this solution are deducted; (3) these deductions are tested by experiment, and as a result the hypothesis is accepted, modified or discarded.

 

Check up for comprehension.

 

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 scientists follow in his research?

 

Text 3

Mathematization of natural sciences

1) Read the text to yourself and be ready for a comprehension check-up.

 

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 aspect of nature by somewhat different working methods. It follows that mathematics in its pure sense does nor 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.

 

2) Check up for comprehension.

 

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?

 

Text 4

Pure and applied science

1) Read the text to yourself and be ready for a comprehension check-up.

 

As students of science you are probably sometimes puzzled by the terms "pure" and "applied" science. Are these two totally different activities, having little or 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 relationship 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.

 

2) Check up for comprehension.

 

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?

 

Text 5

Science and Technology

1) Look through the text concentrating on the beginning of each paragraph and write down a plan, either in English or in Russian.

 

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 if 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 for by the logic of science. This king 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 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 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. One the other hand, it is the basis of a new technology, the workshop of hold technical ideas, and the driving force behind continuous technical progress.

4. In popular books and journal 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 hecoming 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 avanlanche-like process.

5. Things are, in fact, much more complex that 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 10-13 cm or in the wold 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 100-200 billion electron volt acceleration to its completion. It should be borne in mind, too that few measurements and readings given by these great facilities push science forward, result 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 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.

 

Read paragraph 1.

 

1. Identify the topic sentence and the illustrating sentences. Find the sentence containing the author's prognosis and the word indicating that it is a prognosis.

2. What is meant by "the situation" and "these very areas"?

 

Read paragraph 2.

 

1. Identify the topic sentence. Answer the questions: 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. Identify two sentences similar in meaning paragraphs 1 and 2.

3. Identify the words which reveal a comparison in the first sentence of paragraph 2.

4. Translate the last sentence of the paragraph into Russian.

 

Read paragraph 3.

 

1. Identify the topic sentence and the sentences developing its idea.

2. Give Russian equivalents of "striving to reach the essence…" and "the workshop of bold technical ideas".

III. Look through the paragraphs again and indicate the words and word groups used to connect the paragraphs and the sentences within them.

 

I. 1. Read the text again without consulting the dictionary. Identify 7 structures according to pattern 12 and give Russian equivalents of the relevant part of the sentence, paying special attention to the choice of Russian conjuctions.

 

II. Paragraphs Study (consult the dictionary if necessary).

 

Read paragraph 4.

 

1. Follow the wold "science" through the paragraph and copy out the words related to it in meaning. State the main idea of the paragraph (in English or in Russian).

2. Copy out the sentence summed up by the wold impression.

3. Copy out the words equivalent to: непрерывный поток, дерзкая теория, лавинообразный.

 

Read paragraph 5.

 

1. Divide the paragraph into three parts with the following titles: Subject of Research, Tools of Research and Results of Research. Indicate the beginning of each part.

2. Read the first sentence again and copy out the words indicating that the popular view on science is not adequate.

 

III. Translate paragraph 5 into Russian.

 

Text 6

Scientific attitude

1) Read the text to yourself and be ready for a comprehension check up.

 

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.

 

2) Check up for comprehension.

 

1. What qualities do we expect to find in a successful scientist?

2. Why do we say that a successful scientists 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 analysed" and "to be analysed".

 

 

Text 7

Research Fundamental and Applied, and the Public

I. 1. Read the text consulting the dictionary. Divide the text into three parts, copy out the dominant noun in each part and suggest a title for each part. 2. Identify 19 structures according to Pattern 9 and give their Russian equivalents.

 

1. People are always talking about fundamental research, implying thereby the existence of a nameless opposite. A good definition of fundamental research will certainly 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 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 result 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 result 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 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. Owe 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 as intricate that an increasing number of people prefer dealing with the confusion of the phenomena that 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 experimentors 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 experimentor, and he may not like this auxiliary role. Still another viewpoint is that theory server to discourage the waste of time on making useless experiments.

7. Let us try to flatter theory by fiving 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 od, 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 thing 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 relativity to the ether and which obstinately showed the opposite. Each stage in the unfolding of quantum mechanics was exciting to the physicist 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 is physics consists in trying to create a particular state of out0of-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 leaving the audience in the out0of-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.

 

II. Paragraph Study (consult the dictionaty if necessary).

Read paragraphs 1-3.

1. Follow the nouns research, definition and argument through their transformations into pronouns and state the main of the paragraphs, either in English or in Russian.

2. Copy out the words equivalent to: весьма желательно иметь хорошее определение; предпринять, не задумываясь; ограничить возможные результаты своей деятельности; расширение знаний приносит пользу.

3. Give Russian equivalents of 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.

 

Read paragraphs 4-7.

 

1. Follow the dominant noun through the paragraphs and copy out the definitions of theory and the beginning of the sentences containing counter argument.

2. Copy out the words equivalent to: образуют простую, но строгую систему; теории имеют настолько сложный и запутанный характер; вспомогательная функция; предотвращать потерю времени; приносящий глубокое удовлетворение.

3. Give Russian equivalents of the underlying simplicity; the hanman of the experimentor; a device for saving time; a remote relation.

 

Read paragraphs 8-12.

 

1. Concentrate on the opening question and the possible answers considered by the author. Make up a summary of the paragraphs in three sentences in Russian.

 

III. Translate paragraphs 8-12 into Russian.

IV. Make up a list of words that you have looked up in the dictionary and give their contextual Russian equivalents.

 

Text 8

How to Write a Popular Scientific Article

Most scientific workers desire to spread a knowledge of their subject and to increase their own incomes. Both can be done by writing on science for the general public. In what follows I shall give some hints on how to do it. But let no reader suppose that my method is the only one. Literary synthesis is like organic chemical synthesis. The method to be adopted depends on the product required, the raw materials, and the apparatus available. As my brain is my apparatus, and different from yours, my methods will also differ from yours.

The first thing to remember is that your task is not easy, and will be impossible if you despise technique. For literature has its technique, like science, and unless you set yourself a fairly high standard you will get nowhere. So don't expect to succeed at your first, or even your second, attempt.

For whom are your writing? This is even more important than the choice of subject. For you will not get an article on the history of 18th-century physics into a daily newspaper. Moreover the length of your article will depend on where it is to be published.

Now for the subject matter. You may take a particular piece of research work, or a particular application of science. Or you may choose some general principle, and illustrate in from different branches of scientific work. For example an excellent article could be written on fruitful accidents. Priestley broke a thermometer, and the fate of the mercury from it led him to the discovery of oxigen. Takamine spilled some ammonia into a preparation from suprarenal glands, and crystallized out adrenaline. Probably you will do better to begin on some specialized topic, unless you are a student of the history of science.

Remember that your treatment of it must be highly selective. So far you have probably written two main types of article. Firstly answers to examination questions in which you tried to show how much you knew about some topic. And secondly scientific papers or technical reports which dealt very exhaustively with a small point. Now you have to do something quite different. You are not trying to show off; nor are you aiming at such accuracy that your readers will be able to carry out some operation. You want to interest or even excite them, but not to give them complete information.

You must therefore know a very great deal more about your subject than you put on paper. Out of this you must choose the items which will make a coherent story. A number of the articles which are submitted to me from time to time are far too like examination answers. They give the impression that the author has looked his subject up, and tried to give a condensed summary of it. Such a summary may be all very well in a text-book. But will not hold the attention of a reader of popular articles, who does not contemplate severe intellectual exertion.

This does not mean that you must write for an audience of fools. It means that you must constantly be returning from the unfamiliar facts of science to the familiar facts of everyday experience. It is good to start from a known fact, say a bomb explosion, a bird's song, or a cheese. This will enable you to illustrate some scientific principle. But here again take a familiar analogy. Compare the production of hot gas in the bomb to that of steam in a kettle, the changes which occur in the bird each year to those which take place in men once in a lefetime at puberty, the precipitation of casein calcium salts to the formation of soap suds. If you know enough, you will be able to proceed to your goal i8n a series of hops rather than a single long jump.

If you try to write an article in this way, you will probably discover your own ignorance, especially of quantitative matters. How completely do a robin's gonads revert to an infantile condition in autumn? How much more calcium is there in milk than in London tap water? What is the maximum temperature in an exploding bomb? It may take you twelve hours reading to produce an intellectually honest article of a thousand words. In fact you will have to educate yourself as well as your public.

When you have done your article, give it to a friend, if possible, a fairly ignorant one. Or put it away for six months and see if you still understand ot yourself. You will probably fond that some of the sentences which seemed simple when you wrote them, now appear very involved. Here are some hints on combing them out. (Remember, by the way, that I am only giving my personal opinions. Prof. Hogben writes sentences longer than some of my paragraphs and his books sell very well, as they ought to). Can you use an active verb instead of a passive verb or a verbal noun? If so, use it. Instead of "It is often thought that open windows are good for health", or "There is a widespread opinion that open windows are good for health", try "Many people think that open windows are good for health" or "Most people", if you think that is the case.

Try to make the order of the phrases in your sentence correspond with the temporal or causal order of the facts with which you deal. Instead of "Species change because of the survival of the fittest" try "The fittest members survive in each generation, and so a species changes". Not that I like the phrase "aspecies changes". It would be better to say "the average characters of the members of a species, such as weight or hair-lenght, change". Of course in the history of scientific discovery an effect is commonly known to be probably true before it is formally proved. If you enunciate your theorem before you prove it you are apt to give the impression, as Euclid does, that you are producing rabbits from a hat. Whereas if you lead up to it gently you create less impression of cleverness, but your reader may find your argument much easier to follow.

In a scientific, and still more, a mathematical paper, elegance of presentation, which often means the hat-and-rabbit method, is always great fun, and sometimes desirable. How delightful to produce some wholly unexpected function at the last moment by contour integration, to damn a suggested mechanism by an appeal to Hearnshaw's theorem, or to label a plant which won't breed true as just another case of balanced lethals. By doing so you may help the serious student to short cuts in thinking, But you will merely dazzle the ordinary reader, Go slow, and show him as many steps as you can in your arguments or causal chain, even if, in your own thinking, you skip some of them or take them backwards.

When you have written your article may seem rather gaunt and forbidding, a catalogue of hard facts and abstract argument. A critic may say it needs padding. I object to padding for padding's sake. It is characteristic of writers who are more interested in their style than their subject matter, such as Charles Lamb or Robert Lynd, but out of place in a scientific article. On the other hand you must do what you can to help your reader to link up your article with the rest of his knowledge. You can do this by referring to familiar facts or to familiar literature. I have been severely criticized for "dragging in" references to Marx in my articles in the Daily Worker, thought I think I refer to Engels more frequently.

But a number of my readers are familiar with the works of these authors. Engels said certain things about change, as Heraclitus said very similar things before him, and Bergson and Witehead after him. But for one of my readersa who had read Heraclitus, Bergson, or Whitehesd, a hundred have read Engels, so I prefer to cite him. If I were lecturing on the same matters to classical acholars I should perhaps site Heraclitus, even thought I think Engels said it better.

In my last book on genetics, there are seven quotations from Dante's Divine Comedy. I have been criticized for "dragging in" Dante. But I think it worth while to show the continuity of human thought. I don't agree with Dante's theory that mutations are due to divine providence but I consider it desirable to point out that he had a theory on this subject. I think that popular science can be of real value by emphasizing the unity of human knowledge and endeavour at their best. This fact is hardly stressed at all in the ordinary teaching of science and good popular science should correct this fault both by showing how science is created by technology and creates it, and by showing the relation between scientific and other forms of thought.

A popular scientific article should, where possible, include some news. I try, as a general rile, to include one or two facts which will not be familiar to a student taking a university honours course in the subject in question, unless his teachers keep well up with the periodical literature. As there is often a lag of five years between the publication of a discovery and its inclusion in a textbook this is not very difficult in peace time. But it is not very easy at present, in view of the number of libraries which have closed down, and the absence of many European and some American periodicals. Of course some care is needed in appraising mew work. A very large number of alleged discoveries of this kind for announcement to the public. If, like myself, the writer is actually engaged in research, and has seen a number of his own bright ideas go west, he is less likely to fall into this particular trap.

In the early stages of popular writing it is well to write out a summary of the article, thought I rarely do so myself, Here is a possible skeleton for an article on cheese.

Introduction. A well-known fact, say the shortage of cheese.

Central theme. The progress of cheese manufacture.

Why it is important. Cheese as the cheapest food containing large amounts of "good" protein. Vitamins and calcium in cheese.

Connections with other branches of science. Rennet compared with other enzyme preparations used in industry, e.g. in confectionery and tanning. Other uses of specific microorganisms, e.g. in crewing. Why putrid cheese is safer than putrid meat.

Practical suggestions. How to increase our cheese output. Combating mastitis in cows. Cattle feed and fertilizers, Should cargo space be devoted to cheese rather that meat? Need for scientific planning of national food supply.

How much of this you can get it depends on the length of your article and your capacity for compression. If you are writing for a highbrow journal you may quote the passages on cheese from Euripides "Cyclops", if for a lowbrow, any of the jokes about the smell of cheese.

That is one way of doing it. Nut other writers would show cheese as part of the Mysterious Universe. We do not understand protein synthesis, not the extreme specificity of some enzyme actions. Cheese-making is part of the pre-scientific activities by which we still keep a communion with nature. Cheese is a natural food, and beef is not. And so on. I think this is an anti-scientific attitude. But you can sell that sort of stuff, and get over a certain amount of genuine knowledge while doing so. Everyone must write popular scientific articles in his own way. I have only describer one way, and I do not claim that it is the only way, or even the best possible way.

 

Exercises:

1. Read the text consulting the dictionary.

2. Divide the text into main parts and suggest a title for each part.

3. Make up a summary of the whole text.

4. Write down the main suggestions of the author.

5. Try to write your scientific article.

 

Text 9

Men of science: Archimedes, Newton

Archimedes was killed in 212 B.C., at the age of seventy or over. He was not only a first-rate mathematician, but a first-rate scientist. As a mathematician, he broke away from the formal and rather narrow methods of Greek geometry, and invented something very like the integral calculus.

Among the propositions which he proved was that the area of a sphere is the same as that of the curved part of a cylinder which just fits round it. The design of a sphere in a cylinder was engraved on his tomb. He also showed that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71.

But his most important work was the founding of the science of hidrostatics. According to the story usually told, King Hieron of Syracuse had bought a crown which was alleged to be of pure gold. The King suspected that it had a core of mere silver, but did not want to out it open, so he asked Archimedes how to decide the question.

Archimedes hit on the answer in the public bath, and was excited that he rushed through the streets to the palace without dressing. If this is true, he was the first absent-minded professor in history, and the crown was worth more that all other crowns put together.

He saw that a pound of silver occupies nearly twice as much space as a pound of gold, and that the bulk can be measured by putting each in a full vessel, and measuring how much water runs over. So he compared the bulk of the crown with those of an equal weight of silver.

This led at once to the notion that every substance has a characteristic density, or specific gravity. Thus a cubic inch of gold weights 19.25 times as a cubic inch of water, while a cubic inch of silver weights 10.5 times as much. So a silver crown displaces nearly twice as much water as a golden crown of the same weight, and a mixed one displaces an intermediate amount.

For thousands of years before Archimedes merchants had been weighting and measuring. Weight and bulk are examples of what are called extensive properties of matter. They add up. Two pounds and three pounds make five pounds, and so on.

But density is an intensive property. It does not add up. If you mix a metal with a density of 6 and one with a density of 10, you do not get an alloy with a density of 16, but usually with one somewhere between 6 and 10.

Modern physics and engineering are based on intensive properties which can be measured. Her are a few of then. Temperature, electrical conductivity, heat conductivity, hardness, elasticity, refractive index, albedo (fraction of light reflected), melting-point, boiling-point, solubility in water, magnetic susceptibility, coefficient of thermal expansion, viscosity.

Any engineer could mention dozens more. There are other extensive properties besides weight and bulk, such as heat content, entropy, electrostatic capacity, and so on. But physics could not start without the measurement of the intensive properties.

Archimedes went on to found the science of hydrostatics, and did it so well that some of his propositions are taught to-day, almost without change. And he made a beginning with statics, introducing such fundamental ideas as that of the centre of gravity.

He laid the foundations of physics, but very little was built on them until Stevin continued his work on statics, and Galileo founded dynamics in the sixteenth century A. D. Science died out when the free Greek cities such as Syracuse were conquered by the Romans, and was born again in the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and in the free cities of Italy.

We can see why in died out from the life of Archimedes himself. He invented a number of machines, including a screw for raising water, and others used in defending Syracuse against the Romans. He is said to have set fire to their ships with a concave mirror, but this is no more possible than the heat ray in Wells's The War of the Worlds.

He refused to write accounts of any of these inventions, except a sphere for demonstrating the motions of the planets. He regarded them as beneath the dignity of a philosopher. This attitude to manual work was inevitable in a society based on slavery. But the gap between through and manual work was not very wide in the Greek cities, where many citizens were craftsmen, and if they owned a slave or two, worked beside them at the bench.

As the Romans conquered the Mediterranean basin, and made millions of slaves, the gap became so great that science died out.

Eighteen centuries later, in Holland and Italy, craftsmen once more became leading citizens, and science started again.

There was another reason why science decayed under the Roman Empire. Unemployment developed among the free population of Rome and other great towns, while the slaves were worked to de