评论
打印
The hypothesis of an expanding Earth has never attracted notable support, and if it were not for the historical example of continental drift, such indifference might be a legitimate response to an apparently improbable concept. It should be remembered, however, that drift too was once regarded as illusory, but the idea was kept alive until evidence from physicists compelled geologists to reinterpret their data.
Of course, it would be as dangerous to overreact to history by concluding that the majority must now be wrong about expansion as it would be to reenact the response that greeted the suggestion that the continents had drifted. The cases are not precisely analogous. There were serious problems with the pre-drift world view that a drift theory could help to resolve, whereas Earth expansion appears to offer no comparable advantages. If, however, physicists could show that the Earth’s gravitational force has decreased with time, expansion would have to be reconsidered and accommodated.
The final acceptance of a drift theory could best be used to support the argument that
A.Physicists are reluctant to communicate with other scientists
B.Improbable hypotheses usually turn out to be valid
C.There should be cooperation between different fields of science
D.There is a need for governmental control of scientific research
E.Scientific theories are often proved by accident
In developing his argument, the author warns against
A.relying on incomplete measurements
B.introducing irrelevant information
C.rejecting corroborative evidence
D.accepting uninformed opinions
E.making unwarranted comparisons
It can be deduced from the passage that the gravitational force at a point on the Earth's surface is
A.Representative of the geologic age of the Earth
B.analogous to the movement of land masses
C.Similar to optical phenomena such as mirages
D.proportional to the size of the Earth
E.Dependent on the speed of the Earth's rotation
