题目内容
有关药学服务的目标，以下说法最正确的是
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Think of all the criminals who have killed, all the soldiers who have killed; consider the mass murder of Jews in Nazi Germany. Is there something inside human beings that allows us to take part in this sort of violence, or were these people swept along by the situation Stanley Milgram, a New York psychologist, designed an experiment to find answers to this question, paying adult males four and a half dollars to act the role of "teacher" in a complicated experiment. The "teachers" were to ask questions of a "learner", a middle-aged man in another room. If the learner gave an incorrect answer, the teacher was instructed to turn a knob to send an electric current to the learner’s chair. There were thirty positions on the control knob, with the shocks ranging from 15 to 450 volts, the last position marked "Danger: Severe Shock". The teachers were told to increase the severity of the shock with each incorrect response. With the first few shocks, the learner could be heard over the intercom, grunting and moaning. When the dial reached 150, he demanded that the experiment be ended; shortly afterwards, at 180 volts, he began to complain of the pain. At 300 volts, he complained about his heart condition, screamed, and no longer responded to the questions; but the teachers who complanined about their roles in the experiment were told the experiment had to continue. According to the rules, the learner’s failure to respond was an "error", so he must be shocked. A group of psychiatrists was asked for predictions. Certainly, they said, most people would not punish the victim beyond 150 volts. Furthermore, they predicted fewer than four percent would persist up to 300 volts; only abnormal individuals--less than one tenth of a percent--would proceed to 450 volts. And, in fact, nearly every "teacher" did protest--each became concerned that he might injure the learner, and many said they could not continue to follow instructions. At 180 volts, one "teacher" said, "He’s hollering. He can’t stand it; what if anything happens to him I mean who is going to take responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman" When the experimenter said he would accept responsibility, the teacher meekly responded, "All right." Some teachers, alarmed by the silence in the next room, called out to the learner to answer so they wouldn’t have to continue shocking him. In fact, most of the teachers protested, but the important thing is that they did not disobey their instruction. Sixty-two percent of all the subjects delivered shocks all the way up to 450 volts--the average highest shock was 370 volts. Of course, the learner was not being shocked. Even his screams were tape-recorded. But this experiment and similar variations of it have been repeated several times, and the results are invariably the same: in the presence of authority, in a situation governed by rules. Personality tests given to the subjects who delivered the shocks of 450 volts show that they are not abnormal or sick in any way. They’re exactly like the rest of us. We can conclude from the passage that ______.
Rumor has it that more than 20 books on creationism/evolution are in the publisher’’s pipelines. A few have already appeared. The goal of all will be to try to explain to a confused and often unenlightened citizenry that there are not two equally valid scientific theories for the origin and evolution of universe and life. Cosmology, geology and biology have provided a consistent, unified, and constantly improving account of what happened. "Scientific" creationism, which is being pushed by some for "equal time" in the classrooms whenever the scientific accounts of evolution are given, is based on religion, not science. Virtually all scientists and the majority of nonfundamentalist religious leaders have come to regard "scientific" creationism as bad science and bad religion. The first four chapters of Kitcher’’ s book give a very brief introduction to evolution. At appropriate places, he introduces the criticisms of the creationists and provides answers. In the last three chapters, he takes off his gloves and gives the creationists a good beating. He describes their programmes and tactics, and, for those unfamiliar with the ways of creationists, the extent of their deception and distortion may come as an unpleasant surprise. When their basic motivation is religious, one might have expected more Christian behavior. Kitcher is a philosopher, and this may account, in part, for the charity and effectiveness of his arguments. The nonspecialist will be able to obtain at least a notion of the sorts of data and argument that support evolutionary theory. The final chapters on the creationists will be extremely clear to all. On the dust jacket of this fine book, Stephen Jay Gould says:" This book stands for reason itself." And so it does―and all would be well were reason the only judge in the creationism/evolution debate. "Creationism" in the passage refers to_________________.
左心衰竭合并肺水肿
Science has long had an uneasy relationship with other aspects of culture. Think of Gallileo’s 17th-century trial for his rebelling belief before the Catholic Church or poet William Blake’’s harsh remarks against the mechanistic worldview of Isaac Newton. The schism between science and the humanities has, if anything, deepened in this century. Until recently, the scientific community was so powerful that it could afford to ignore its critics but no longer. As funding for science has declined, scientists have attacked "antiscience" in several books, notably Higher Superstition, by Paul R. Gross, a biologist at the University of Virginia, and Norman Levitt, a mathematician at Rutgers University; and The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan of Cornell University. Defenders of science have also voiced their concerns at meetings such as" The Flight from Science and Reason," held in New York City in 1995,and "Science in the Age of (Mis) information, "which assembled last June near Buffalo. Antiscience clearly means different things to different people. Gross and Levitt find fault primarily with sociologists, philosophers and other academics who have questioned science’’s objectivity. Sagan is more concerned with those who believe in ghosts, creationism and other phenomena that contradict the scientific worldview. A survey of news stories in 1996 reveals that the antiscience tag has been attached to many other groups as well, from authorities who advocated the elimination of the last remaining stocks of smallpox virus to Republicans who advocated decreased funding for basic research. Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, whose manifesto published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pretechnological Utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are antiscience, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest. The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrtich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth. Indeed, some observers fear that the antiscience epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. "The term ’’ antiscience’’ can lump together too many, quite different things, "notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science. "They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened." Paragraphs 2 and 3 are written to ____________.
微信支付 
支付宝支付