听力教程英语散文Word文档格式.docx

1、re going through When it comes to love Theres no easy answer Only you can say what youre gonna do I heard you on the phone, you took his number Said you werent alone, but youd call him soon Isnt he the guy, the guy who left you cryint he the one who made you blueWhen you remember those nights in his

2、 arms You know youve gotta make up your mind Are you gonna stay with the one who loves you Or are you going back to the one you love Someones gonna cry when they learn theyve lost you s gonna thank the stars above What you gonna say when he comes over s no easy way to see this throughAll the broken

3、dreams all the disappointments Oh girl - What you gonna do Your heart keeps sayin its just not fair But still yous gonna thank the stars above老橡树上的黄丝带（Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Ole Oak Tree）歌词Im coming home Ive done my time*（1）Now Ive got to know what is and isnt mineIf you received my letter te

4、lling you Id soon be freeThen youll know just what to do if you still want meIf you still want meOh tie a yellow ribbon round the ole oak treeIts been three long years do you still want meIf I dont see a ribbon round the ole oak treell stay on the bus forget about us put the blame on me*（2）t see a y

5、ellow ribbon round the ole oak treeBus driver please look for meCause I couldnt bear to see what I might seem really still in prison and my love she holds the keyA simple yellow ribbons what I need to set me freeI wrote and tell her pleasell stay on the bus forget about us put the blame on meNow the

6、 whole damn bus is cheeringAnd I cant believe I seeA hundred yellow ribbons round the ole oak treem coming home注释（1）Ive done my time:我已刑满了（2）put the blame on me:将过错都归于我散文:Unit Ten: Debating the unknowableDo animals think? How could the earth show so many signs of design and purpose and yet be random

7、? Our best scientists are heatedly debating both sides of these and other scientific questions. In the following essay, the author takes a look at science education and argues that as well ass telling students the facts and theories that have already been proved and accepted, science teacher should

8、spend more time introducing their students to the many mysteries that remain unsolved and the arguments taking place between scientists. What better way, he argues, to stimulate their interest in thing scientific? DEBATING THE UNKNOWABLE Lewis Thomas The greatest of all the accomplishment of twentie

9、th-century science has been the discovery of human ignorance. We live, as never before, in puzzlement about nature, the universe, and ourselves most of all. It is a new experience for the species. A century ago, after the turbulence caused by Darwin and Wallace had subsided and the central idea of n

10、atural selection had been grasped and accepted, we thought we knew everything essential about evolution. In the eighteenth century there were no huge puzzles; human reason was all you needed in order to figure out the universe. And for most of the earlier centuries, the Church provided both the ques

11、tions and the answers, neatly packaged. Now, for the first time in human history, we are catching glimpses of our incomprehension. We can still make up stories to explain the world, as we always have, but now the stories have to be confirmed and reconfirmed by experiment. This is the scientific meth

12、od, and once started on this line we cannot turn back. We are obliged to grow up in skepticism, requiring proofs for every assertion about nature, and there is no way out except to move ahead and plug away, hoping for comprehension in the future but living in a condition of intellectual instability

13、for the long time. It is the admission of ignorance that leads to progress, not so much because the solving of a particular puzzle leads directly to a new piece of understanding but because the puzzle - if it interests enough scientists - leads to work. There is a similar phenomenon in entomology kn

14、ow as stigmergy, a term invented by Grasse, which means to incite to work. When three or four termites are collected together in a chamber they wander about aimlessly, but when more termites are added, they begin to build. It is the presence of other termites, in sufficient numbers at close quarters

15、, that produces the work: they pick up each others fecal pellets and stack them in neat columns, and when the columns are precisely the right height, the termites reach across and turn the perfect arches that form the foundation of the termitarium. No single termite knows how to do any of this, but

16、as soon as there are enough termites gathered together they become flawless architects, sensing their distances from each other although blind, building an immensely complicated structure with its own air-conditioning and humidity control. They work their lives away in this ecosystem built by themse

17、lves. The nearest thing to a termitarium that I can think of in human behavior is the making of language, which we do by keeping at each other all our lives, generation after generation, changing the structure by some sort of instinct. Very little is understood about this kind of collective behavior

18、. It is out of fashion these days to talk of superorganisms, but there simply arent enough reductionist details in hand to explain away the phenomenon of termites and other social insects: some very good guesses can be made about their chemical signaling systems, but the plain fact that they exhibit

19、 something like a collective intelligence is a mystery, or anyway an unsolved problem, that might contain important implications for social life in general. This mystery is the best introduction I can think of to biological science in college. It should be taught for its strangeness, and for the amb

20、iguity of its meaning. It should be taught to premedical students, who need lessons early n their careers about the uncertainties in science. College students, and for that matter high school students, should be exposed very early, perhaps at the outset, to the big arguments currently going on among

21、 scientists. Big arguments stimulate their interest, and with luck engage their absorbed attention. Few things in life are as engrossing as a good fight between highly trained and skilled adversaries. But the young students are told very little about the major disagreements of the day; they may be t

22、aught something about the arguments between Darwinians and their opponents a century ago, but they do not realize that similar disputes about other matters, many of them touching profound issues for our understanding of nature, are still going on and, indeed, are an essential feature of the scientif

23、ic process. There is, I fear, a reluctance on the part of science teachers to talk about such things, based on the belief that before students can appreciate what the arguments are about they must learn and master the fundamentals. I would be willing to see some experiments along this line, and I ha

24、ve in mind several examples of contemporary doctrinal dispute in which the drift of the argument can be readily perceived without deep or elaborate knowledge of the subject. There is, for one, the problem of animal awareness. One school of ethologists devoted to the study of animal behavior has it t

25、hat human beings are unique in the possession of consciousness, differing from al other creatures in being able to think things over, capitalize on past experience, and hazard informed guesses at the future. Other, lower, animals （with possible exceptions made for chimpanzees, whales, and dolphins）

26、cannot do such things with their minds; they live from moment to moment with brains that are programmed to respond, automatically or by conditioning, to contingencies in the environment, Behavioral psychologists believe that this automatic or conditioned response accounts for human mental activity a

27、s well, although they dislike that word mental. On the other side are some ethologists who seems to be more generous-minded, who see no compelling reasons to doubt that animals in general are quite capable of real thinking and do quite a lot of it thinking that isnt as dense as human thinking, that

28、is sparser because of the lack of language and the resultant lack of metaphors to help the thought along, but thinking nonetheless. The point about this argument is not that one side or the other is in possession of a more powerful array of convincing facts; quite the opposite. There are not enough

29、facts to sustain a genuine debate of any length; the question of animal awareness is an unsettled one. Another debatable question arises when one contemplates the whole biosphere, the conjoined life of the earth. How could it have turned out to possess such stability and coherence, resembling as it does a sort of enormous developing embryo, with nothing but chance events to determine its emergence? Lovelock and Margulis, facing this problem, have proposed the Gaia Hypothesis, which is, in brief, that the earth is itself a form of life, a c