两个相同的水杯中，分别装有质量相等的冷水和热水．同时往两个水杯里各滴一滴红墨水，

毛 * * 在《中国社会各阶级的分析》一文中，初步提出了关于( )

A．新民主主义革命的基本思想
B．农村包围城市、武装夺取 * * 道路的理论
C．新民主主义的理论
D．人民民主专政的理论

下列选项中，( )是小组工作在成效上的特点。

A．社会控制

B．再社会化

C．促进经验分享和经验选择

D．形成群体力量解决问题

E．影响个人转变

1989年11月20日联合国大会通过了《儿童权利公约》，体现这一《公约》核心精神的基本原则有：儿童利益最佳原则、尊重儿童尊严原则、______原则、无歧视原则。

年轻女性，因甲亢行双侧甲状腺大部切除术，3天后出现声音嘶哑，可能的原因（）。

A.喉上神经损伤

B.术中切断一侧喉返神经

C.术中误扎一侧喉返神经

D.术后血肿压迫

E.以上都不正确

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 can’y 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 protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are lull of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual 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 structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’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 accompanies 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-Gy6rgyi 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.

According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its（）

A. uncertainty and complexity

B. misconception and deceptiveness

C. logicality and objectivity

D. systematicness and regularity