EigoPro 1級読解 — The Limits of Scientific Objectivity

The popular image of science as a wholly impartial enterprise, in which disinterested observers simply read the verdicts inscribed in nature, has proven remarkably durable—and remarkably misleading. Few practising scientists would defend so naive a portrait, yet it persists in textbooks and public discourse, where it lends research an aura of incontestable authority. Philosophers of science, by contrast, have spent the better part of a century dismantling it, arguing that objectivity is less a starting condition than a hard-won and perpetually provisional achievement. The difficulty begins with observation itself. The notion that facts present themselves nakedly, awaiting passive transcription, founders on the recognition that all observation is theory-laden: what an investigator notices, and how she interprets it, is shaped by the conceptual framework she brings to the inquiry. A radiologist and a layperson confronting the same scan do not see the same thing. This does not render perception arbitrary, but it does mean that the boundary between datum and inference is porous rather than fixed. Compounding the problem, the questions a discipline deems worth asking—and the phenomena it consequently renders visible—reflect contingent institutional priorities, funding structures, and prevailing assumptions about what counts as a legitimate object of study. None of this licenses the fashionable inference that science is therefore merely one belief system among others, no more warranted than astrology or folklore. That conclusion mistakes the location of objectivity. Objectivity, on the more defensible account, is not the property of any single mind purged of bias—an impossibility—but an emergent feature of communities governed by robust norms of criticism. It is the institutionalised demand that claims survive scrutiny from differently situated investigators, that anomalies be confronted rather than suppressed, and that no result be insulated from challenge by appeals to authority. Individual partiality is not eliminated; it is held in check by a structure that makes private prejudice publicly accountable. Paradoxically, then, science earns its credibility not by transcending the human standpoint but by organising a multiplicity of standpoints so that their respective distortions can be exposed and corrected. To concede the limits of objectivity is thus not to capitulate to relativism but to grasp, more precisely, the conditions under which trustworthy knowledge becomes possible at all.

5問合格 60%以上普通

新規登録またはログインが必要です

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

Which of the following best expresses the central argument of the passage?

Scientists should abandon the textbook image of impartiality and acknowledge that their findings are essentially matters of personal interpretation.
Objectivity is best understood not as the absence of individual bias but as a product of communities whose critical norms expose and correct their members' distortions.
The principal threat to scientific authority is the influence of funding structures and institutional priorities on the questions researchers pursue.
Because all observation is shaped by theory, the claim that science delivers trustworthy knowledge can no longer be sustained.

Phrase

objectivity as an emergent, community-level achievement

1級読解主旨把握論旨の核心

⚡ひとことで

客観性は個人の無偏向ではなく、批判的共同体が歪みを暴き補正する仕組みから生まれる、というのが筆者の中心主張。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Objectivity is best understood not as the absence of individual bias but as a product of communities whose critical norms expose and correct their members' distortions.」

正解

第3段落で筆者は objectivity を「偏見を取り除いた単一の精神の属性ではなく、強固な批判規範に統べられた共同体の創発的特徴 (an emergent feature of communities governed by robust norms of criticism)」と定義する。さらに末尾で「人間の視点を超越するのではなく、複数の視点を組織化することで信頼性を得る」と述べており、この選択肢が論旨を正確に要約している。

「Because all observation is shaped by theory, the claim that science delivers trustworthy knowledge can no longer be sustained.」
= 観察が理論依存だから科学的知識は信頼できない ━ 第3段落冒頭で筆者はこの推論を fashionable inference と呼び明確に否定している。本文と矛盾。。
「Scientists should abandon the textbook image of impartiality and acknowledge that their findings are essentially matters of personal interpretation.」
= 科学者は所見が個人的解釈の問題だと認めるべき ━ 本文は主観性を認めつつも relativism への投降ではないと結論する。部分的に正しいが筆者の趣旨を取り違えている。。
「The principal threat to scientific authority is the influence of funding structures and institutional priorities on the questions researchers pursue.」
= 制度的優先順位や資金が科学の権威への主な脅威 ━ funding structures は第2段落で観察の理論依存性の一例として触れられるだけで、最大の脅威とは論じていない。部分的・周辺的。。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
read the verdict inscribed in ~	~に刻まれた評決を読み取る	Observers do not simply read the verdicts inscribed in nature.
a hard-won achievement	苦労して勝ち取った成果	Stability proved to be a hard-won achievement.
an emergent feature of ~	~から創発する特徴	Consciousness may be an emergent feature of neural activity.
governed by norms of ~	~の規範に統べられた	The field is governed by strict norms of peer review.
held in check by ~	~によって抑制される	Inflation was held in check by tight policy.

❝例文

The popular image of science as wholly impartial has proven durable yet misleading.
科学を完全に公平とみなす一般的なイメージは根強いが誤解を招くと証明されてきた。
Objectivity is less a starting condition than a perpetually provisional achievement.
客観性は出発点の条件というより、絶えず暫定的な成果である。
Private prejudice is made publicly accountable by the structure of inquiry.
私的偏見は探究の構造によって公的に説明責任を負わされる。
Science earns credibility by organising a multiplicity of standpoints.
科学は複数の視点を組織化することで信頼性を得る。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

主旨設問では、最も強い限定語を含む選択肢ではなく、論証全体の到達点を問う。本文が「Aではなく実はB」という構造を取る場合、Bの側を正確に捉えた選択肢が正解になりやすい。極端な否定 (no longer sustained) は筆者が反駁する立場であることが多い点に注意。

問 2

According to the passage, why does the naive image of scientific impartiality persist despite being discredited?

It accurately reflects the way radiologists and other specialists perceive raw data.
Philosophers of science have been unable to offer a coherent alternative account of objectivity.
Practising scientists actively defend it because it protects their findings from external scrutiny.
It survives in textbooks and public discourse, where it confers an aura of incontestable authority on research.

Phrase

where it lends research an aura of incontestable authority

1級読解詳細通俗的イメージの存続理由

⚡ひとことで

通俗的イメージは教科書や公的言説の中で存続し、研究に争えない権威の雰囲気を与えるから残る。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「It survives in textbooks and public discourse, where it confers an aura of incontestable authority on research.」

正解

第1段落で「実践科学者はこの素朴な描像を擁護しないが、それでも教科書や公的言説の中に persist し、研究に incontestable authority の aura を与える (it lends research an aura of incontestable authority)」と明記されている。この選択肢は本文の文言をほぼそのまま反映している。

「Practising scientists actively defend it because it protects their findings from external scrutiny.」
= 実践科学者が外部の監視から守るため積極的に擁護 ━ 本文は Few practising scientists would defend so naive a portrait と述べており、正反対。矛盾。。
「Philosophers of science have been unable to offer a coherent alternative account of objectivity.」
= 科学哲学者が一貫した代替説明を出せていない ━ 第1段落末で哲学者は1世紀かけてそれを dismantling し、provisional achievement という説明を提示している。矛盾。。
「It accurately reflects the way radiologists and other specialists perceive raw data.」
= 放射線科医らの生データの見方を正確に表す ━ 第2段落はむしろ専門家と素人が同じものを見ないと述べ、素朴像を否定する例。取り違え。。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
lend ~ an aura of …	~に…の雰囲気を与える	The award lent his work an aura of legitimacy.
incontestable authority	争う余地のない権威	The data was treated as incontestable authority.
persist in ~	~の中に根強く残る	The myth persists in popular accounts.
defend a portrait	ある描像を擁護する	Few would defend so crude a portrait.
public discourse	公的言説	The idea circulates widely in public discourse.

❝例文

The misleading image persists in textbooks and public discourse.
誤解を招くイメージは教科書や公的言説の中に根強く残る。
It lends research an aura of incontestable authority.
それは研究に争えない権威の雰囲気を与える。
Few practising scientists would defend so naive a portrait.
そのような素朴な描像を擁護する実践科学者はほとんどいない。
The aura of authority discourages critical questioning.
権威の雰囲気は批判的な問い直しを妨げる。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

「なぜ存続するか」を問う設問では、原因を述べた節 (where 節・because 節) を本文から特定する。ここでは関係副詞 where 以下が存続の機能的理由を述べており、その内容を保持した選択肢が正解。本文と逆の主体 (科学者が擁護) を据えた誤答に注意。

問 3

What does the passage claim about the relationship between observation and theory?

Theory becomes relevant only after the facts have been passively transcribed by the observer.
What an investigator notices and how she interprets it are shaped by the conceptual framework she brings to the inquiry.
A clear and fixed boundary separates raw data from the inferences subsequently drawn from them.
Because perception is theory-laden, observational reports are ultimately arbitrary and cannot be trusted.

Phrase

all observation is theory-laden

1級読解詳細観察の理論依存性

⚡ひとことで

観察は理論を帯び、何に気づきどう解釈するかは持ち込む概念枠組みに左右される。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「What an investigator notices and how she interprets it are shaped by the conceptual framework she brings to the inquiry.」

正解

第2段落で「all observation is theory-laden: what an investigator notices, and how she interprets it, is shaped by the conceptual framework she brings to the inquiry」と述べられる。放射線科医と素人が同じスキャンを見ても同じものを見ない、という例もこれを裏づけており、この選択肢が本文の主張そのもの。

「Because perception is theory-laden, observational reports are ultimately arbitrary and cannot be trusted.」
= 理論依存ゆえ観察報告は恣意的で信用できない ━ 本文は直後に This does not render perception arbitrary と明示的に否定している。矛盾。。
「A clear and fixed boundary separates raw data from the inferences subsequently drawn from them.」
= 生データと推論を分ける固定した境界がある ━ 本文は the boundary is porous rather than fixed と述べる。正反対。。
「Theory becomes relevant only after the facts have been passively transcribed by the observer.」
= 事実が受動的に転写された後で初めて理論が関わる ━ 理論依存性は観察の時点で働くという主張であり、受動的転写という前提自体を本文は否定する。取り違え。。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
theory-laden	理論を帯びた	All measurement is to some degree theory-laden.
shaped by a framework	枠組みに形づくられた	Her conclusions were shaped by a Marxist framework.
render ~ arbitrary	~を恣意的にする	Ambiguity does not render the rule arbitrary.
porous rather than fixed	固定でなく浸透的	The line is porous rather than fixed.
bring ~ to the inquiry	~を探究に持ち込む	Each scholar brings assumptions to the inquiry.

❝例文

A radiologist and a layperson do not see the same thing in a scan.
放射線科医と素人は同じスキャンに同じものを見ない。
This does not render perception arbitrary.
これは知覚を恣意的にするわけではない。
The boundary between datum and inference is porous rather than fixed.
データと推論の境界は固定的でなく浸透的である。
The framework she brings shapes what counts as relevant.
彼女が持ち込む枠組みが何を関連事項とするかを形づくる。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

理論依存性の主張は「だから恣意的・信用できない」へ滑りやすいが、C2 論説はしばしば直後に逆接で歯止めをかける。does not render ~ arbitrary のような限定節を見落とすと過剰一般化の誤答を選んでしまう。主張と、その主張が含意しないことの線引きを正確に追う。

残り2問は、解いて確かめられます

全5問すべてに、この形式の解説が付いています。間違えた問題は記録され、あとから復習できます。

無料で登録して続きを解く

インストール不要・カード登録なし・いま全機能無料

この単元の講義を見る 1級の単元一覧 1級の用語集

EigoPro 1級 読解 — The Limits of Scientific Objectivity

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

objectivity as an emergent, community-level achievement

where it lends research an aura of incontestable authority

all observation is theory-laden

EigoPro 1級読解 — The Limits of Scientific Objectivity