题文
Why the inductive and mathematical sciences, after their first rapid development at the culmination of Greek civilization, advanced so slowly for two thousand years—and why in the following two hundred years a knowledge of natural and mathematical science has accumulated, which so vastly exceeds all that was previously known that these sciences may be justly regarded as the products of our own times—are questions which have interested the modern philosopher not less than the objects with which these sciences are more immediately conversant. Was it the employment of a new method of research, or in the exercise of greater virtue in the use of the old methods, that this singular modern phenomenon had its origin? Was the long period one of arrested development, and is the modern era one of normal growth? Or should we ascribe the characteristics of both periods to so-called historical accidents—to the influence of conjunctions in circumstances of which no explanation is possible, save in the omnipotence and wisdom of a guiding Providence?The explanation which has become commonplace, that the ancients employed deduction chiefly in their scientific inquiries, while the moderns employ induction, proves to be too narrow, and fails upon close examination to point with sufficient distinctness the contrast that is evident between ancient and modern scientific doctrines and inquiries. For all knowledge is founded on observation, and proceeds from this by analysis, by synthesis and analysis, by induction and deduction, and if possible by verification, or by new appeals to observation under the guidance of deduction—by steps which are indeed correlative parts of one method; and the ancient sciences afford examples of every one of these methods, or parts of one method, which have been generalized from the examples of science.
A failure to employ or to employ adequately any one of these partial methods, an imperfection in the arts and resources of observation and experiment, carelessness in observation, neglect of relevant facts, by appeal to experiment and observation—these are the faults which cause all failures to ascertain truth, whether among the ancients or the moderns; but this statement does not explain why the modern is possessed of a greater virtue, and by what means he attained his superiority. Much less does it explain the sudden growth of science in recent times.
The attempt to discover the explanation of this phenomenon in the antithesis of “facts” and “theories” or “facts” and “ideas”—in the neglect among the ancients of the former, and their too exclusive attention to the latter—proves also to be too narrow, as well as open to the charge of vagueness. For in the first place, the antithesis is not complete. Facts and theories are not coordinate species. Theories, if true, are facts—a particular class of facts indeed, generally complex, and if a logical connection subsists between their constituents, have all the positive attributes of theories.
Nevertheless, this distinction, however inadequate it may be to explain the source of true method in science, is well founded, and connotes an important character in true method. A fact is a proposition of simple. A theory, on the other hand, if true has all the characteristics of a fact, except that its verification is possible only by indirect, remote, and difficult means. To convert theories into facts is to add simple verification, and the theory thus acquires the full characteristics of a fact.
小题1: The title that best expresses the ideas of this passage is
[A]. Philosophy of mathematics. [B]. The Recent Growth in Science.
[C]. The Verification of Facts. [C]. Methods of Scientific Inquiry.
小题2:According to the author, one possible reason for the growth of science during the days of the ancient Greeks and in modern times is
[A]. the similarity between the two periods.
[B]. that it was an act of God.
[C]. that both tried to develop the inductive method.
[D]. due to the decline of the deductive method.
小题3: The difference between “fact” and “theory”
[A]. is that the latter needs /confirm/iation.
[B]. rests on the simplicity of the former.
[C]. is the difference between the modern scientists and the ancient Greeks.
[D]. helps us to understand the deductive method.
小题4: According to the author, mathematics is
[A]. an inductive science. [B]. in need of simple verification.
[C]. a deductive science. [D]. based on fact and theory.
小题5: The statement “Theories are facts” may be called.
[A]. a metaphor. [B]. a paradox.
[C]. an appraisal of the inductive and deductive methods.
[D]. a pun. 题型：未知 难度：其他题型
答案
小题1:D
小题2:B
小题3:A
小题4:C
小题5:B
解析
小题1:科学研究/探索的方法。文章一开始就提出问题，为什么从希腊文化顶峰时期后两千年来归纳法和数学科学发展如此缓慢，而后的两百年又超越了前人，是应用新，旧方法关系还是其它（见难句译注1，2）。第二段讲埃及古代在科学探索中运用了演绎推理法，而现在应用了归纳法。这种解释太狭隘，经仔细审核，难以很清晰地点明古代和现代科学教义和探究上明显的差别。因为一切知识都基于观察，通过分析，综合，或综合分析，归纳演绎推理，有可能的话，经过校正或经由演绎指导下再观察而向前推进。第三段进一步阐明不用这些方法观察，实验；忽略相关事实，推理不慎；不能答出理论的结论，再用实验或观察来检验等或用得不全，不论在古代还是现代都会失败。但这不能说明为什么现代科学具有较高的功效，通过什么方式方法，超越了前人，更不用说说明最近科学突飞猛进的原因。第四，五段涉及事实和理论的关系。
A. 数学的哲学，文内没有提。 B. 近来科学的发展。 C. 事实的验证，只是最后两段提及验证方法之作用。
小题2:B. 是上天的安排，这是作家在用方法论等失败后得出的结论。见难句译注4，第一段最后一句话。
A. 两个阶段的相似性。 . 两者都试图应用归纳法。 D. 由于演绎法的衰落。
小题3:A. 后者需要证实。答案在第四，五段，死段试图在事实的对立面和理论，或事实和思想中发现上述现象的解释看起来有饿太狭隘，也会因模糊不清遭批评。因为，对立面不全面，事实和理论不是同类的事物。理论，如果是真正的理论，就是事实——一种特殊类别的事实，一般复杂，但仍是事实。而事实，从词的狭义来说，如果很复杂，如果各成分中存在着逻辑的联系，就具有理论的一切主要特征。第五段第二句，事实是一个提议，通过运用知识的源泉和经验而证实的提议直接而又简单。而理论，若是真理论，就有事实的一切特性（除非其证实只能通过非直接的，遥远的和困难的方式方法），把理论转成事实必须用简单的核实，理论因此具有事实的一切特性。
B. 前者简单。 C. 是现代科学家和古希腊的差异。 D. 帮助我们了解演绎法，三项都不对。
小题4:C. 是推理演绎科学，这个问题常识就能回答。
A. 归纳法科学。 B. 需要简单证实。 D. 基于事实和理论。
小题5: B. 是一个悖论，见第四，五段注释。
A. 比喻。 C. 对归纳法和演绎法的赞扬。 D. 双关语。
考点
据考高分专家说，试题“Why the inductive an.....”主要考查你对 [科教类阅读 ]考点的理解。科教类阅读
科教类阅读的概念：
科教类阅读主要考查考生对书面语篇的整体领悟能力和接受及处理具体信息的能力。试题的取材，密切联系当前我国和世界经济、科技等方面的变化，有关数据的来源真实可信。
科教类文章阅读技巧：
一、材料特点：
这类文章的总体特点是：科技词汇多，句子结构复杂，理论性强，逻辑严谨。具体说来它有以下几个特点：
1、文章中词汇的意义比较单一、稳定、简明，不带感情色彩，具有单一性和准确性的特点。这类文章通常不会出现文学英语中采用的排比、比喻、夸张等修辞手法，一词多义的现象也不多见。
2、句子结构较复杂，语法分析较困难。为了描述一个客观事物，严密地表达自己的思想，作者经常会使用集多种语法现象于一体的长句。
3、常使用被动语态，尤其是一些惯用被动句式。
二、命题特点：
科普类阅读的主要命题形式有事实细节题、词义猜测题、推理判断题以及主旨概括题等，其中推理判断题居多。
三、应对策略：
1、要想做好科普英语阅读理解题，同学们就要注意平时多读科普知识类文章，学习科普知识，积累常见的科普词汇，从根本上提高科普英语的阅读能力。
2、要熟悉科普类文章的结构特点。科普类文章一般由标题(Head line)，导语(Introduction)，背景(Back ground)，主体(Main body)和结尾(End)五部分构成。标题是文章中心思想高度而又精辟的概括，但根据历年的高考情况来看，这类阅读理解材料一般不给标题，而要同学们选择标题。导语一般位于整篇文章的首段。背景交待一个事实的起因。主体则对导语概括的事实进行详细叙述，这一部分命题往往最多，因此，阅读时，同学们要把这部分作为重点。结尾往往也是中心思想的概括，并与导语相呼应，命题者常在此要设计一道推理判断题。
3、在进行推理判断时，同学们一定要以阅读材料所提供的科学事实为依据，同时所得出的结论还应符合基本的科普常识。
科普类阅读应试策略：
【命题趋势】
阅读理解题主要考查考生对书面语篇的整体领悟能力和接受及处理具体信息的能力。试题的取材，密切联系当前我国和世界经济、科技等方面的变化，有关数据的来源真实可信。因此科普知识类文章是每年的必考题。分析历年的科普类文章我们不难发现以下特点：
1、文章逻辑性强，条理清楚，语法结构简单，用语通俗。
2、文章内容注重科技领域的新发现。内容新颖，从而使文章显得陌生，内容抽象复杂。
3、命题方面注意对具体细节的准确理解和以之为依据的推理判断。
4、以人们的日常行为或饮食健康入手，探讨利弊，诠释过程，阐述概念。
【应试对策】
许多考生在考试时感到困惑的是：为什么一些没有超越中学语法和词汇范围的篇章，读起来却不能正确理解，或者要花费很多时间才能读懂呢？这种现象的产生与阅读方法有很大的关系。例如，有的考生在考试时一见到文章就立刻开始读，结果读了半天，还不知道短文讲的是什么，试题要求了些什么，结果浪费了大量的时间，而阅读效果并不好。那么，怎样读效果才好呢？任何一种阅读方法或技巧的使用，都是由篇章特点和试题本身的要求决定的，应根据不同的体裁和试题要求采取不同的策略。
1、浏览。浏览的主要目的就是确定文章的体裁。如果文章属于人物传记、记叙文、故事、科普小品和有关社会文化、文史知识的文章，一般来说，应该先看看文章的试题考查内容，对题目类型做到心中有数，针对不同问题，在通读时有粗有细地去阅读，这样不仅能把握篇章的基本结构和逻辑线索，也能做好有关具体事实信息考查的试题。
2、挖掘寓意，掌握中心思想，推出结论。任何文章，作者在行文时都有一定的写作目的和主要话题。在通读篇章时应该吃透作者的写作意图，抓住文章的主题句，充分发挥自己的想象力和概括力，作出对中心思想的归纳和结论的推断。
3、把握篇章结构，利用上下文进行推测。高考中的阅读理解篇章往往是一个较完整的短文，其结构、思想，前后上下连贯统一。考试时应充分利用这一特点推测一些生词、短语在句中的含义，切莫盲目孤立猜测。
4、综观全篇，前后呼应。这是阅读理解的最后一步，在做完阅读理解题后，要立足于文章整体，再迅速读一遍短文，短文中的问题和答案的设置前后都是相关联的，有着一定的连续性，体现着文章的基本脉络。
