患者经手术切除肿瘤，术后病理结果报告肿瘤已侵犯包膜。该患者最可能的诊断是A．淋巴瘤B

下列各式计算正确的是[ ]

A．﹣3a+5b=2ab

B．5a+a=5a²

C．3a²b﹣6b²a=﹣3ab²

D．4a²b﹣3ba²=a²b

在证券经纪商与投资者的委托代理关系中，投资者是( )。

A．授权人

B．代理人

C．委托人

D．受托人

市民社会理论中的“三分法”的直接理论来源是（）

A.葛兰西

B.哈马贝斯

C.科恩

D.阿拉托

下面哪一项是中国画对笔墨的要求（）。

A.厚；薄

B.透；小

C.透；厚

D.透；薄

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