历年考研真题.doc

历年考研真题——英译汉

1994年

According to the new school of scientists, technology is an overlooked force in expanding the horizons of scientific knowledge. (71) Science moves forward, they say, not so much through the insights of great men of genius as because of more ordinary things like improved techniques and tools. (72) "In short", a leader of the new school contends, "the scientific revolution, as we call it, was largely the improvement and invention and use of a series of instruments that expanded the reach of science in innumerable directions. "
(73 ) Over the years, tools and technology themselves as a source of fundamental innovation have largely been ignored by historians and philosophers of science. The modern school that hails technology argues that such masters as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and inventors such as Edison attached great importance to, and derived great benefit from, craft information and technological devices of different kinds that were usable in scientific experiments.
The centerpiece of the argument of a technology-yes , genius-no advocate was an analysis of Gialileo' s role at the start of the scientific revolution. The wisdom of the day was derived from Ptolemy, an astronomer of the second century, whose elaborate system of the sky put Earth at the center of all heavenly motions. (74) Galileo's greatest glory was that in 1609 he was the first person to turn the newly invented telescope on the heavens to prove that the planets revolve around the sun rather than around the Earth. But the real hero of the story, according to the new school of scientists, was the long evolution in the improvement of machinery for making eye-glasses.
Federal policy is necessarily involved in the technology vs. genius dispute. (75)Whether the government should increase the financing of pure science at the expense of technology or vice versa (反之) often depends on the issue of which is seen as the driving force.

1996年

The differences in relative growth of various areas of scientific research have several causes. 71) Some of these causes are completely reasonable results of social needs. Others are reasonable consequences of particular advances in science being to some extent self-accelerating. Some, how-ever, are less reasonable processes of different growth in which preconception of the form scientific theory ought to take, by persons in authority, act to alter the growth pattern of different areas.
This is a new problem probably not yet unavoidable; but it is a frightening trend. 72) This trend began during the Second World War, when several governments came to the conclusion that the specific demands that a government wants to make of its scientific establishment cannot generally be foreseen in detail. It can be predicted, however, that from time to time questions will arise which will require specific scientific answers. It is therefore generally valuable to treat the scientific establishment as a resource or machine to be kept in functional order. 73) This seems mostly effectively done by supporting a certain amount of research not related to immediate goals but of possible consequence in the future.
This kind of support, like all government support, requires decisions about the appropriate recipients of funds. Decisions based on utility as opposed to lack of utility are straightforward. But a decision among projects none of which has immediate utility is more difficult. The goal of the supporting agencies is the praisable one of supporting "good" as opposed to "bad" science, but a valid determination is difficult to make. Generally, the idea of good science tends to become confused with the capacity of the field in question to generate an elegant theory. 74) However, the world is so made that elegant systems are in principle unable to deal with some of the world's more fascinating and delightful aspects. 75) New forms of thought as well as new subjects for thought must arise in the future as they have in the past, giving rise to new standards of elegance.

1997年

Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, groundclearing way to start. 71) Actually, it isn't, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human rights, which is something the world does not have.
On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. 72) Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore, animals cannot have rights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd, for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people — for instance to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it, how do you reply to somebody who says “I don't like this contract”?
The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. 73) It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at all?
Many deny it. 74) Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake — a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.
This view which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely “logical”. In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is right to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning — the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl — is to weigh others' interests against one's own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. 75) When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind's instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.

2000年

Governments throughout the world act on the assumption that the welfare of their people depends largely on the economic strength and wealth of the community.71) Under modem conditions, this requires varying measures of centralized control and hence the help of specialized scientists such as economists and operational research experts.72)Furthermore, it is obvious that the strength of a country's economy is directly bound up with the efficiency of its agriculture and industry, and that this in turn rests upon the efforts of scientists and technologists of all kinds. It also means that governments are increasingly compelled to interfere in these sectors in order to step up production and ensure that it is utilized to the best advantage. For example, the may encourage research in various ways, including the setting up of their own research centers; they may alter the structure of education, of in they may cooperate directly in the growing number of international projects related to science, economics and industry. In any case, all such interventions are heavily dependent on scientific advice and also scientific and technological manpower of all kinds.
73) Owing to the remarkable development in mass-communications, people everywhere are feeling new wants and are being exposed to new customs and ideas, while governments are often forced to introduce still further innovations for the reasons given above. At the same time, the normal rate of social change throughout the world is taking place at a vastly accelerated speed compared with the past. For example.74) in the early industrialized countries of Europe the process of industrialization with all the far-reaching changes in social patterns that followed-was spread over nearly a century, whereas nowadays a developing nation may undergo the same process in a decade or so. All this has the effect of building up unusual pressures and tensions within the community and consequently presents serious problems for the governments concerned.75)Additional social stresses may also occur because of the population explosion or problems arising from mass migration movements-themselves made relatively easy nowadays by modern means of transport. As a result of all these factors, governments are becoming increasingly dependent on biologists and social scientists for planning the appropriate programs and putting them into effect.

2003年

Human beings in all times and places think about their world and wonder at their place in it. Humans are thoughtful and creative, possessed of insatiable curiosity. (61) Furthermore, humans have the ability to modify the environment in which they live, thus subjecting all other life forms to their own peculiar ideas and fancies. Therefore, it is important to study humans in all their richness and diversity in a calm and systematic manner, with the hope that the knowledge resulting from such studies can lead humans to a more harmonious way of living with themselves and with all other life forms on this planet Earth.
　　“Anthropology” derives from the Greek words “anthropos”:“human” and logos “the study of.” By its very name, anthropology encompasses the study of all humankind.
　　Anthropology is one of the social sciences.(62) Social science is that branch of intellectual enquiry which seeks to study humans and their endeavors in the same reasoned, orderly, systematic, and dispassioned manner that natural scientists use for the study of natural phenomena.
　　Social science disciplines include geography, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Each of these social sciences has a subfield or specialization which lies particularly close to anthropology.
　　All the social sciences focus upon the study of humanity. Anthropology is a field-study oriented discipline which makes extensive use of the comparative method in analysis.(63)The emphasis on data gathered first-hand, combined with a cross-cultural perspective brought to the analysis of cultures past and present, makes this study a unique and distinctly important social science.
　　Anthropological analyses rest heavily upon the concept of culture. Sir Edward Tylor’s formulation of the concept of culture was one of the great intellectual achievements of 19th century science. (64) Tylor defined culture as“…that complex whole which includes belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” This insight, so profound in its simplicity, opened up an entirely new way of perceiving and understanding human life. Implicit within Tylor’s definition is the concept that culture is learned. shared, and patterned behavior.
　　(65)Thus, the anthropological concept of “culture,” like the concept of “set” in mathematics, is an abstract concept which makes possible immense amounts of concrete research and understanding.