题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
[判断题]
Because certainty is a threat to an organization's effectiveness, managers try to
查看答案
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“Because certainty is a threat …”相关的问题
According to experts, the test for AIDS is______.
A．100 percent certainty correlated with the presence of the virus in cultures
B．ambiguous because even they themselves are not certain
C．inaccurate because there are consistently confusing results
D．not correlated with the presence of the virus
I suggest we think of ethics as analogous to language usage. There are no univocal rules of grammar and style. which uniquely determine the best sentence for a particular situation. Nor is language usage universalizable. Although a sentence or phrase is warranted in one case, it does not mean it is automatically appropriate in like circumstances. Nonetheless, language usage is not subjective.
This should not surprise us in the least. All intellectual pursuits are relativistic in just these senses. Political science, psychology, chemistry, and physics are not certain, but they are not subjective either. As I see it, ethnical inquiry proceeds like this: we are taught moral principles by parents, teachers, and society at large. As we grow older we become exposed to competing views. These may lead us to reevaluate presently held beliefs. Or we may find ourselves inexplicably making certain valuations, possibly because of inherited altruistic tendencies. We may "learn the hard way" that some actions generate unacceptable consequences. Or we may reflect upon our own and others' "theories" or patterns of behavior. and decide they are inconsistent. The resulting views are "tested"; we act as we think we should and evaluate the consequences of those actions on ourselves and on others. We thereby correct our mistakes in light of the test of time.
Of course people make different moral judgments; of course we cannot resolve these differences by using some algorithm which is itself beyond judgment. We have no vantage point outside human experience where we can judge right and wrong, good and bad. But then we don't have a vantage point from where we can be philosophical relativists either.
We are left within the real world, trying to cope with ourselves, with each other, with the world, and with our own fallibility. We do not have all the moral answers, nor do we have an algorithm to discern those answers, neither do we possess an algorithm for determining correct language usage but that does not make us throw up our hands in despair because we can no longer communicate.
If we understand ethics in this way, we can see, I think, the real value of ethical theory. Some people talk as if ethical theories give us moral prescriptions. They think we should apply ethical principles as we would a poultice: after diagnosing the ailment, we apply the appropriate dressing. But that is a mistake. No theory provides a set of abstract solutions to apply straightforwardly. Ethical theories are important not because they solve all moral dilemmas but because they help us notice salient features of moral problems and help us understand those problems in context.
Ethical principles are generally thought to be ______.
A．explicitly clear
B．implicitly vague
C．certain but non-rational
D．relative but not subjective
I suggest we think of ethics as analogous to language usage. There are no univocal rules of gram mar and style. which uniquely determine the best sentence for a particular situation. Nor is language usage universalizable. Although a sentence or phrase is warranted in one case, it does not mean it is automatically appropriate in like circumstances. Nonetheless, language usage is not subjective.
This should not surprise us in the least. All intellectual pursuits are relativistic in just these senses. Political science, psychology, chemistry, and physics are not certain, but they are not subjective either. As I see it, ethical inquiry proceeds like this: we are taught moral principles by parents, teachers, and society at large. As we grow older we become exposed to competing views. These may lead us to reevaluate presently held beliefs. Or we may find ourselves inexplicably making certain valuations, possibly because of inherited altruistic tendencies. We may "learn the hard way" that some actions generate unacceptable consequences. Or we may reflect upon our own and others' "theories" or pat terns of behavior. and decide they are inconsistent. The resulting views are "tested;" we act as we think we should and evaluate the consequences of those actions on ourselves and on others. We thereby correct our mistakes in light of the test of time.
Of course people make different moral judgments; of course we cannot resolve these differences by using some algorithm which is itself beyond judgment. We have no vantage point outside human experience where we can judge right and wrong, good and bad. But then we don't have a vantage point from where we can be philosophical relativists either.
We are left within the real world, trying to cope with ourselves, with each other, with the world, and with our own mistakes. We do not have all the moral answers; nor do we have an algorithm to discern those answers. Neither do we possess an algorithm for determining correct language usage but that does not make us throw up our hands in despair because we can no longer communicate.
If we understand ethics in this way, we can see, I think, the real value of ethical theory. Some people talk as if ethical theories give us moral prescriptions. They think we should apply ethical principles as we would a poultice: after diagnosing the illness, we apply the appropriate dressing. But that is a mistake. No theory provides a set of abstract solutions to apply straightforwardly. Ethical theories are important not because they solve all moral dilemmas but because they help us notice salient features of moral problems and help us understand those problems in context.
Ethics was generally considered to be
A．definite and clear.
B．vague and uncertain.
C．certain but non-rational.
D．relative but not subjective.
The basic aim of the Scholastics determined certain common attitudes, the most important of which was their conviction of the fundamental harmony between reason and revelation. The Scholastics maintained that because the same God was the source of both types of knowledge and truth was one of his chief attributes, he could not contradict himself in these two ways of speaking. Any apparent opposition between revelation and reason could be traced either to an incorrect use of reason or to an inaccurate interpretation of the words of revelation. Because the Scholastics believed that revelation was the direct teaching of God, it possessed for them a higher degree of truth and certainty than did natural reason. In apparent conflicts between religious faith and philosophic reasoning, faith was thus always the supreme arbiter; the theologians decision overruled that of the philosopher. After the early 13th century, Scholastic thought emphasized more the independence of philosophy within its own domain. Nonetheless, throughout the Scholastic period, philosophy was called the servant of theology, not only because the truth of philosophy was subordinated to that of theology, but also because the theologian used philosophy to understand and explain revelation.
This attitude of Scholasticism stands in sharp contrast to the so-called double-truth theory of the Spanish-Arab philosopher and physician Averroёs. His theory assumed that truth was accessible to both philosophy and Islamic theology but that only philosophy could attain it perfectly. The so-called truths of theology served, hence, as imperfect imaginative expressions for the common people of the authentic truth accessible only to philosophy. Averroёs maintained that philosophic truth could even contradict, at least verbally, the teachings of Islamic theology.
As a result of their belief in the harmony between faith and reason, the Scholastics attempted to determine the precise scope and competence of each of these faculties. Many early Scholastics, such as the Italian ecclesiastic and philosopher St. Anselm, did not clearly distinguish the two and were overconfident that reason could prove certain doctrines of revelation. Later, at the height of the mature period of Scholasticism, the Italian theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas worked out a balance between reason and revelation.
第31题：With the Scholastics, the search for new knowledge _____.
［A］ stopped completely
［B］ slowed down
［C］ advanced rapidly
［D］ awaked gradually
The basic aim of the Scholastics determined certain common attitudes, the most important of which was their conviction of the fundamental harmony between reason and revelation. The Scholastics maintained that because the same God was the source of both types of knowledge and truth was one of his chief attributes, he could not contradict himself in these two ways of speaking. Any apparent opposition between revelation and reason could be traced either to an incorrect use of reason or to an inaccurate interpretation of the words of revelation. Because the Scholastics believed that revelation was the direct teaching of God, it possessed for them a higher degree of truth and certainty than did natural reason. In apparent conflicts between religious faith and philosophic reasoning, faith was thus always the supreme arbiter; the theologians' decision overruled that of the philosopher. After the early 13th century, Scholastic thought emphasized more the independence of philosophy within its own domain. Nonetheless, throughout the Scholastic period, philosophy was called the servant of theology, not only because the truth of philosophy was subordinated to that of theology, but also because the theologian used philosophy to understand and explain revelation.
This attitude of Scholasticism stands in sharp contrast to the so-called double-truth theory of the Spanish-Arab philosopher and physician Averroes. His theory assumed that truth was accessible to both philosophy and Islamic theology but that only philosophy could attain it perfectly. The so-called truths of theology served, hence, as imperfect imaginative expressions for the common people of the authentic truth accessible only to philosophy. Averroes maintained that philosophic truth could even contradict, at least verbally, the teachings of Islamic theology.
As a result of their belief in the harmony between faith and reason, the Scholastics attempted to determine the precise scope and competence of each of these faculties. Many early Scholastics, such as the Italian ecclesiastic and philosopher St. Anselm, did not clearly distinguish the two and were overconfident that reason could prove certain doctrines of revelation. Later, at the height of the mature period of Scholasticism, the Italian theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas worked out a balance between reason and revelation.
With the Scholastics, the search for new knowledge ______.
A．stopped completely
B．slowed down
C．advanced rapidly
D．awaked gradually
It was no _______ that his car was seen near the bank at the time of the robbery.
A coincidence B convention C certainty D complication
It is a favorite pastime of older people to lament the defects of the young. Every generation seems to be convinced that in its day, standards were higher, schools were tougher and kids were smarter. But if I.Q. scores are any measure, and even their critics agree they measure something, people are getting smarter. Researchers who study intelligence say scores around the world have been increasing so fast that a high proportion of people regarded as normal at the turn of the century would be considered way below average by today's tests.
Psychologists offer a variety of possible explanations for the increase, including better nutrition, urbanization, more experience with test taking, and smaller families. Some even say that television and video games have made children's brains more agile. But no explanation is without its critics, and no one can say with certainty what effects, if any, the change is having on how people lead their daily lives. It is all the more mysterious because it seems to be happening in the absence of a simultaneous increase in scores on achievement tests. One explanation for the rise is ruled out: genetics. Because the increase has taken place in a relatively short period of time, it cannot be due to genetic factors.
The worldwide pattern of rising scores in industrialized nations was discovered by Dr. James R. Flynn, now a professor at the University of Otego, New Zealand. He began looking into the subject in the 1980's in an effort to rebut Dr. Arthur Jensen, the professor from the UC Berkeley who argued that even if the environments of blacks and whites were equalized, the 15-point gap in I. Q. scores between the races would only be partly eliminated.
As Dr. Flynn investigated, he found that I. Q. scores were going up almost everywhere he looked. Although the gap remains, Dr. Flynn said the movement in scores suggests that the gap need not be permanent. If blacks in 1995 had the same mean I. Q. that whites had in 1945, he said, it may be that the average black environment of 1995 was equivalent in quality to the average white environment of 1945. "Is that really so implausible？" Dr. Flynn asked.
Meanwhile, the kinds of intelligence that are promoted and respected vary from time to time, said Dr. Patricia Greenfield, a psychology professor at the UCLA. Playing computer games like Tetris promotes very different skills from reading novels. The new skills, she said, are manifested in the world. "Flynn will tell you we don't have more Mozarts and Beethovens," Dr. Greenfield said, "I say, look at the achievements of science, like DNA. Or look at all the technological developments of this century. "
The case of older people is mentioned to______.
A．illustrate the defects of young people
B．stress that standards of education are dropping
C．imply that young people are actually not more stupid than earlier generations
D．compare the intelligence gap between generations
This issue is so complicated because______.
A．the pope has no capacity to deal with it
B．it involve two poles of near certainty
C．it may affect the pope's orthodoxy
D．there are two parties on this issue in the church
The issue is AIDS. Church officials recently confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI had requested a report on whether it might be acceptable for Catholics to use condoms in one narrow circumstance: to protect life inside a marriage when one partner is infected with H.I.V. or is sick with AIDS.
Whatever the pope decides, church officials and other experts broadly agree that it is remarkable that so delicate an issue is being taken up. But they also agree that such an inquiry is logical, and particularly significant from this pope, who was Pope John Paul II's strict enforcer of church doctrine.
"In some ways, maybe he has got the greatest capacity to do it because there is no doubt about his orthodoxy", said the. Rev. Jon Fuller, a Jesuit physician who runs an AIDS clinic at the Boston Medical Center.
The issue has surfaced repeatedly as one of the most complicated and delicate facing the church. For years, some influential cardinals and theologians have argued for a change for couples affected by AIDS in the name of protecting life, while others have fiercely attacked the possibility as demoting the church's long advocacy of abstinence and marital fidelity to fight the disease.
The news broke just after Benedict celebrated his first anniversary as pope, a relatively quiet papal year. But he devoted his first encyclical to love, specifically between a man and a woman in marriage.
Indeed, with regard to condoms, the only change apparently being considered is in the specific case of married couples. But any change would be unpopular with conservative Catholics, some of whom have expressed disappointment that Benedict has displayed a softer face now as defender of the faith than he did when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the papal adviser.
"It's just hard to imagine that any pope—and this pope—would change the teaching", said Austin Ruse, president of the Culture of Life Foundation, a Catholic-oriented advocacy group in Washington that opposes abortion and contraception.
It is too soon to know where the pope is heading. Far less contentious issues can take years to inch through the Vatican's nexus of belief and bureaucracy, prayer and politics, and Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the pope's top aide on health care issues, and other officials declined requests for interviews.
By the first sentence in the first paragraph, the author actually means______.
A．the war can be supported by the church
B．the Vatican is always telling a lie
C．some doctrines of the church are not so unchangeable
D．people may do as they like
