Communication, One Major Part of the Scientific Method
Scientists may feel it their duty to share their guesses, methods, and findings with the rest of the scientific community. This sharing serves two 1. First, it supports the basic deal of skepticism (怀疑论) by making it possible for others to say, "Oh, yeah? Let me check that." It tells others where to see what the scientist saw, and what techniques and tools to use. Second, it gets the word out so that others can use what has been discovered. This is essential because science is a(n) 2 efforts. People who work thousands of miles apart build with and upon each other's discoveries.
The communication of science begins with "peer review", a process of 3an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the inspection of other experts. It typically has three stages. The first occurs when a scientists seeks funding - from government agencies, foundations, or other 4-- to carry out a research program. He or she must prepare a report describing the intended work, laying out background, hypotheses (假设), planned experiments, expected results, and even the 5 impacts on other fields. Committees of other scientists then 6the report to see whether the scientist knows his or her area, has the necessary abilities, and is realistic in his or her plans.
Once the scientist has the needed 7, has done the work, and has written a report of the results, that reports will go to a scientific journal. Before publishing the report, the journal's editors will show it to other workers in the same or 8fields and ask whether the work was done adequately, the conclusion are justified, and the report should be published.
The third stage of peer review happens are publication, when the broader scientific community gets to see and 9the work.
This three-stage quality-control process can, of course, be faulty. Any scientist with independent wealth can 10the first stage quite easily but such scientists are much, much rarer today than they were a century or so ago. Those who remain are the object of envy. 11, it is fair to say that they are not disapproved as were those who avoid the latter two stages of the "peer review" mechanisms by using press conferences.
On the other hand, it is certainly possible for the standard peer review mechanisms to 12. By their nature, these mechanisms are more likely to 13ideas that are not different from what the reviewers think they already know. Yet the un-traditional or unconventional ideas are not 14wrong, as Alfred Wegener proved when he tried to gain 15for the idea of continental drift in the early twentieth century. It was not until the 1960s that most geologists accepted his ideas as genuine insights.
