文档介绍：Text 3
In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous plicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now es munity’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.' g& |% p* V2 m: Y0 }$ l9 ^3 l2 N5 o5 o
Once a discovery claim es public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, munity takes control of what happens next. Within plex social structure of the munity, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly panying technology. As a discovery claim works it through munity, the interaction and confrontation between shared peting beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into munity’s credible L9 K$ y  l" z# E
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as plete or incorrect. Little reward panies duplication a