The final quarter of the nineteenth century marked a turning point in the history of biology— biologists became less interested in applying an ideal of historical explanation deductively to organic function and more interested in discerning the causes of vital processes through experimental manipulation. But it is impossible to discuss the history of biology in the nineteenth century without emphasizing that those areas of biology most in the public eye had depended on historical explanation. Wherever it was applied, historical explanation was deemed causal explanation. The biologist-as-historian and the general historian of human events dealt with comparable phenomena and assumed necessarily a common mode of explanation.
Nineteenth-century biologists found a historical explanation of organic function attractive partly because their observation of the formation of a new cell from a preexisting cell seemed to confirm a historical explanation of cell generation. The same direct observation of continuous stages of development was also possible when they examined the complex sequence of events of embryogenesis. In both cases, the observer received a concrete impression that the daughter cell was brought into being, or caused, by the prior cell. The argument that these scientists employed confuses temporal succession and causal explanation, of course, but such confusion is the heart of most historical explanation.
Not surprisingly, the evolutionary biologists of the nineteenth century encountered a particularly troublesome problem in their attempts to document historical explanation convincingly: the factual record of the history of life on earth (e.g., that provided by fossils) was incomplete. The temporal continuity of living forms was convincing, but was an assumption that was difficult to uphold when one compared species or organisms forming any two stages of the evolutionary record. Nineteenth-century biologists recognized this problem and attempted to resolve it. Their solution today appears to be only verbal, but was then regarded as eminently causal. The fact of evolution demanded some connection between all reproducing individuals and the species that they compose, as well as between living species and their extinct ancestors. Their solution, the concept of heredity, seemed to fill in an admittedly deficient historical record and seemed to complete the argument for a historical explanation of evolutionary events.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
compare the information about organic function made available by historical explanation with that made available by the experimental investigation of living organisms
assess the influence that theories of history had on developments in the field of biology in the nineteenth century
discuss the importance of historical explanation in the thinking of nineteenth century biologists
contrast biologists’ use of historical explanation during the early nineteenth century with its use during the final quarter of the nineteenth century
evaluate the way in which the concept of heredity altered the use of historical explanation by nineteenth-century biologists
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 C。本文的主要目的是讨论 19 世纪生物学家对历史解释的重要性。文章开头说,19 世纪的最后一个季度标志着生物学史上的一个转折点,生物学家不再将历史解释的理想以归纳的方式应用于有机功能,而是更感兴趣于通过实验操纵来探寻生命过程的原因。紧接着,重点强调的是,那些最受公众关注的生物学领域依赖于历史解释。随后,文章进一步解释在 19 世纪,生物学家特别感兴趣于历史解释,部分因为他们观察到新细胞是从既有细胞生成,而这似乎证实了细胞生成的历史解释,并且也可以通过直接观察到发育过程的连续阶段。这种论证会混淆时间上的继承与因果解释,但这种混淆是大部分历史解释的核心。紧接着,文章强调 19 世纪的进化生物学家在尝试将历史解释得到明确的证据时遭遇了一些特别棘手的问题,尤其是关于生命在地球上的历史记录(如化石提供的记录)的不完整性。这样,19 世纪的生物学家提出了解决问题的方法,今天看来只是口头上的解决方案,但当时被认为是充分的因果解释,这就是“遗传”这一概念,它填补了历史记录中明显的缺陷,并且似乎有完成对进化事件历史解释的论证。因此,本文的主要目的是讨论 19 世纪生物学家对历史解释的重要性,所以答案是 C。
emmm,看文章以为很难,结果题目出的如此简单。。。最难的第三段压根没有出题目
B为什么错
B/C的差异在于一个是theories of history,一个是historical explanation,根据原文,historical explanation更准确。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
第一段:生物学家越来越不喜欢用历史解释的方法做推断研究(其实就是耍嘴皮子,拿历史相似事件说事,说得通就证明了),而更愿意通过实操探究整个过程的研究方式。历史学家也开始变得这样了,他们认为需要定义一个统一的方法。
第二段:介绍了之前生物学家为什么喜欢用历史解释方法,并指出了历史解释法的不足,即错把某种现象实际存在的连续性错当成因果关系了。
第三段:介绍了使生物学家开始摒弃历史解释法的一个契机,即一个关于生物演化的研究,由于不同时代的生物的连续性不具备可比性,所以不能用历史解释法。最终他们通过遗传解决了这个问题。
选项是比较出来的。B/C的差异在于一个是theories of history,一个是historical explanation,根据原文,historical explanation更准确。
不要被第一句turning point迷惑了,本文的总体基调还是emphasizing that those areas of biology most in the public eye had depended on historical explanation,然后第二段讲科学家为什么认为historical explanation合理,第三段讲如何document historical explanation convincingly。
晕_(¦3」∠)_,选了E
大意题不要只关注开头结尾!虽然他们很重要!要看整篇文章的主要讨论对象。毕竟截出来的可能是大文章里的一个小文章,有它自己的意思在嘛!
The first paragraph of the passage notes a turning point in the history of biology. In the late nineteenth century, biologists made a shift away from historical explanation of biology.
However, as the passage continues, it addresses the importance of historical explanation in biology throughout the nineteenth century.