原标题：考研英语阅览 | 《经济学人》读译参阅 day1937
本系列给同学们推送的是经济学人读译参阅文章，我们可以测验翻译一下，坚持操练，不只对考研英语的阅览了解有所协助，还能前进翻译水平。记住和研友们共享哦，等待持续重视~
有关阅览
考研英语阅览 | 《经济学人》读译参阅 day1935
考研英语阅览 | 《经济学人》读译参阅 day1936
后台回复“经济学人”，可以查看合集哟
text 1937
论文和专利的推翻性越来越弱(下)
01
both consolidating and disruptive work are needed for scientific progress, of course, but science now seems to favour the former over the latter in a potentially unhealthy way.mr. park and drs leahey and funk found that the average cd score for papers has fallen by between 92% and 100% since 1945, and for patents between 79% and 92%.these declines are not mere artefacts of changing publication, citation or authorship practices; the researchers controlled for that.why, then, has science become less disruptive?one hypothesis is the low-hanging-fruit theory – that all the easy findings have been plucked from the branches of the tree of knowledge.if true, this would predict different fields would have different rates of decline in disruption, given that they are at different stages of maturity.but that is not the case.
译文
当然，科学前进既需要深化性的作业，也需要推翻性的作业，但如今的科学领域如同以一种潜在的、不安康的方法越来越迈向前者而非后者。帕克、利希和芬克发现，自1945年以来，论文的均匀cd分数降低了92%至100%，专利的均匀cd分数降低了79%至92%。这些降低不只是是因为出书方法、引证方法或作者作业发生了改变；研讨人员对此进行了控制。那么，为啥科学的推翻性变弱了？一种假定是“小方针”理论——简略的发现都能直接从常识树的树枝上摘取。假定真是这样，那么根据猜测，鉴于不一样领域的老到期间不一样，它们推翻性发现的数量降低速度也会不一样。但实际并非如此。
02
the decline the researchers found was comparable in all big fields of science and technology.another idea is that the decline in disruptiveness stems from one in the quality of published work.to test this, the researchers looked at two specific categories: papers in premier publications and nobel-prizewinning discoveries.”if there were a pocket of science where the quality might have declined less, or hasn’t declined,” said mr. park, “it would be in those places.”but the downward trend persisted there, too.a more likely reason for the change, the researchers argue, is that scientists and inventors are producing work based on narrower foundations.they found that citing older work, citing one’s own work, and citing less diverse work all correlate with less disruption.
译文
研讨人员发现，在一切规划现已很大的科学和技能领域，推翻性发现的数量降低速度都是类似的。另一种观念认为，推翻性发现的削减是因为出书作质量量的降低。为了验证这一点，研讨人员查询了两个特定的品种：首要出书物上的论文和获诺贝尔奖的发现。“假定一个科学领域的研讨质量降低更缓慢，或许没有呈现降低，”帕克先生说，“那么推翻性发现就在这个领域。”但降低的趋势一向存在。研讨人员认为，这一改变更可以的缘由是，科学家和创造家研讨的领域更“窄”了。他们发现，引证时刻更长远的论文、自个的论文以及没啥多样性的论 会致使论文的推翻性更弱。
03
as the amount of published science grows, the effort required to master a pool of knowledge that is both deepening and narrowing as the years roll by may inhibit the ability to form creative connections between disparate fields.here is an argument for the rebirth of the renaissance human.mr. park maintains there is room for optimism.though the average disruptiveness of discoveries has declined, the number of “highly disruptive” ones has remained constant.humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science.albert michelson, winner of the 1907 nobel prize in physics for his work on the immutability of the speed of light, which underlay albert einstein’s special theory of relativity, is as wrong now as he was in 1894, when he said that it was “probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established”.
译文
跟着宣告的科学研讨数量的增加，跟着时刻的消逝，掌控一个逐步深化且更集合某个细节的常识库需要更许多的尽力，这可以会阻止研讨人员在不一样领域之间构成创造性的联络。有一个关于复兴时期人类复兴的观念。帕克坚持认为咱们还可以坚持旷达。尽管发现的均匀推翻性有所降低，但“具有高度推翻性”的发现数量照常平稳。人类如同并没有走到科学的止境。阿尔伯特·迈克尔逊因其关于光速不变的研讨获得了1907年诺贝尔物理学奖，他的作业为阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的狭义相对论奠定了基础。他的理论是差错的，在1894年说的话也是差错的，其时的他认为，“大有些重要的根来历理可以都现已健壮地树立了”。回来搜狐，查看更多
责任修改：