C. Look through the paragraphs again and indicate the words and word groups used to connect the paragraphs and the sentences within them (to be continued at home in written form).

1. Read the text again without consulting the dictionary. Give Russian equivalents of the sentences, paying special attention to the choice of Russian conjunctions.

D. Paragraph Study (consult the dictionary if necessary).

Read paragraph 4.

1. Follow the word science through the paragraph and copy out 'the words related to it in meaning. State the main idea of the paragraph (in English or in Russian). 2. Copy out the sentence summed up by the word impression. 3. Copy out the words equivalent to: непрерывный поток, дерзкая теория, лавинообразный.

Read paragraph 5.

1. Divide the paragraph into three parts with the following titles: Subject of Research, Tools of Research and Results of Research. Indicate the beginning of each part. 2. Read the first sentence again and copy out the words indicating that the popular view on science is not adequate.

E. Translate paragraph 5 into Russian,

Text 5. WHAT SCIENCE IS

I. See if you remember:to meet human needs; to refer to, to distinguish to encounter difficulties, to emerge; at great expense; search for truth; to point out.

II. Look through the text concentrating on the beginning and the end of each paragraph, and write an outline, either in Russian or in English (time limit — 10 min.):

1. It can be said that science is a cumulative" body of knowledge about the natural world, obtained by the application of a peculiar method practised by the scientist. It is known that the word science itself is derived from the Latin «scire», to know, to have knowledge of, to experience. Fundamental and applied sciences are commonly distinguished, the former being concerned with fundamental laws of nature, the latter engaged in application of the know ledge obtained. Technology is the fruit of applied science, being the concrete practical expression of research done in the laboratory and applied to manufacturing commodities to meet human needs.

2. The word «scientist» was introduced only in 1840 by a Cambridge professor of philosophy who wrote: «We need a name for describing a cultivator of science in general. I should be inclined to call him a scientist. «The cultivators of science» before that time were known as “natural philosophers”. They were curious, often eccentric, persons who poked inquiring fingers at nature. In the process of doing so they started a technique of inquiry which is now referred to as the “scientific method.”

3. Briefly, the following steps can be distinguished in this method. First comes the thought that initiates the inquiry. It is known, for example, that in 1896 the physicist Henri Becquerel, in his communication to the French Academy of Sciences, reported that he had discovered rays of' an unknown nature emitted spontaneously by uranium salts. His discovery excited Marie Curie and together with her husband Pierre Curie she tried to obtain more knowledge about the radiation. What was it exactly? Where did it come from?

4. Second comes the collecting of facts: the techniques of doing this will differ according to the problem which is to be solved. But it is based on the experiment in which anything may be used to gather the essential data — from a test-tube to an earth-satellite. It is known that the Curies encountered great difficulties in gathering their facts, as they investigated the mysterious uranium rays.

5. This leads to step three: organizing the facts and studying the relationships that emerge. It was already noted that the above rays were different from anything known. How to explain this? Did this radiation come from the atom itself? It might be expected that other materials also have the property of emitting radiation. Some investigations made by Mme Curie proved that this was so. The discovery was followed by further experiments with «active» radioelements only.

6. Step four consists in stating a hypothesis or theory: that is, framing a general truth that has emerged, and that may be modified as new facts emerge. In July 1898, the Curies announced the probable presence in pitchblende ores of a new element possessing powerful radioactivity. This was the beginning of the discovery of radium.

7. Then follows the clearer statement of the theory. In December 1898, the Curies reported to the Academy of Sciences: «The various reasons enumerated lead us to believe that the new radioactive substance contains a new element to which we propose to give the name of Radium. The new radioactive substance certainly contains a great amount of barium, and still its radioactivity is considerable. It can be suggested therefore that the radioactivity of radium must be enormous».

8. And the final step is the practical test of the theory, i. e. the prediction of new facts. This is essential, because from this flows the possibility of control by man of the forces of nature that are newly revealed.

9. Note should be taken of how Marie Curie used deductive reasoning in order to proceed with her research, this kind of «detective work» being basic to the methodology of science. It should be stressed further that she dealt with probability — and not with certainty — in her investigation. Also, although the Curies were doing the basic research work at great expense to themselves in hard physical toil, they knew that they were part of an international group of people all concerned with their search for truth. Their reports were published and immediately examined by scientists all over the world. Any defects in their arguments would be pointed out to them immediately.

III. Paragraph Study.

Read paragraph 1.

1. Follow the dominant noun and the words related to it in meaning through the paragraph and state the main idea. 2. Give Russian equivalents of: a cumulative body of knowledge, a peculiar method practised by the scientist, manufacturing commodities to meet human needs.

Read paragraph 2.

1. Follow the dominant noun and its equivalents through the paragraph. Identify the sentence which repeats the idea expressed in the first sentence of the text. 2. Identify the words used by the author as equivalent to: направляя свой пытливый ум на. . . 3. Identify the words used by the author as equivalent to doing so, a technique of inquiry.

Read paragraph 3.

1. Identify the topic sentence and the illustrating sentences. Among the latter identify the dominant noun and follow it through its transformations into its equivalents and pronouns. 2. Give a Russian equivalent of initiates.

Text 6. 1) Read the text to yourself and be ready for a comprehension check up:

SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE

What is the nature of the scientific attitude, the attitude of the man or woman who studies and applies physics, biology, chemistry or any other science? What are their special methods of thinking and acting? What qualities do we usually expect them to possess?

To begin with, we expect a successful scientist to be full of curiosity — he wants to find out how and why the universe works. He usually directs his attention towards problems which have no satisfactory explanation, and his curiosity makes him look for the underlying relationships even if the data to be analysed are not apparently interrelated. He is a good observer, accurate, patient and objective. Furthermore, he is not only critical of the work of others, but also of his own, since he knows man to be the least reliable of scientific instruments.

And to conclude, he is to be highly imaginative since he often looks for data which are not only complex, but also incomplete.

2) Check up for comprehension:

1. What qualities do we expect to find in a successful scientist? 2. Why do we say that a successful scientist is full of curiosity? 3. Why is it difficult to see the underlying relationships? 4. Why is he critical of his own work? 5. Why is it necessary for him to be highly imaginative? 6. Give a Russian equivalent of the title and of the data analysed and the data to be analysed.

Text 7. 1) Read the text to yourself and suggest a title:

There is some reason in the belief that we are the masters of nature. Yet this very dominance of man over his environment has become the cause of ever-growing concern, on the part of scientists and general public, for what we are doing to the world we live in.

A century ago man had very limited powers to upset the balance of nature. Now this power is multiplied annually by the advance of technology. Thinking people cannot avoid the conclusion that, should present trends continue, we may make our planet physically and psychologically unsuitable for humanity.

In the face of this prospect many people take a defeatist view in the belief that one cannot put back the clock.

They do not realize that it is the compulsive need for quick profits, motivating capitalism, which causes the constant revolutionizing of the modes of production, without regard to the pollution and damage it is doing to the environment. They do not realize that it is the values and attitudes within any society that determine the way it handles nature and natural resources. And only through a radical change in these values and attitudes can we hope to cope with the environmental problem.

2) Check up for comprehension:

1. What is the subject under discussion? 2. What makes scientists and general public feel concerned about the way we handle nature? 3. Has the situation always been the same? 4. What is the change due to? 5. What do thinking people fear? 6. Can you explain what is meant by «defeatist view» and “put, back the clock”? 7. What is the actual cause of constant revolutionizing of the modes of production under capitalism? 8. What is meant by «values and attitudes»? 9. What is the author's hope for the solution of the environmental problem?

Text 8. A. Read the text to yourself and be ready to do some exercises:

1. Should any one attempt a brief characterization of the present-day environment problems he would find it beyond the competence of an individual scientist. For the environmental situation has long become a subject of separate and joint research efforts of biologists, chemists, and biochemists who have to combine their knowledge with the information supplied by students of geology, oceanography and meteorology, with experts in sociology, psychology and philosophy hurriedly joining in. Yet, if stated briefly, one of the causes of the present-day environmental situation should be sought in the lack of a balanced development of particular fields of knowledge, and of an adequate picture of the intricately operating whole which is our planet. The rapid and ever-growing advances in certain highly specialized fields have brought mankind far ahead of our general fundamental knowledge of the long-range effect of some technological developments, spectacular though they may appear, especially of their interplay and interdependence. It is man's intervention in nature that has singled him out from the rest of the animal world since his early days. It is this very intervention that has landed him nowadays in this highly technological world of ours, with the rate of progress in particular applied fields being faster than that in our fundamental knowledge of the general operation of the Earth. It is precisely this discrepancy between the two rates which seems to be at the root of most of today's problems. This is by no means an exhaustive explanation, ignoring as it does, the social factor.

2. The threat to his environment is a second major problem man is faced with in the mid-20th century, the first being a menace of a nuclear catastrophe. What is so peculiar about the environmental problem when compared to the other one? Surely not its global character and everybody's involvement. A nuclear catastrophe, as seen nowadays by practically everybody everywhere, would inevitably involve every country, no matter how small or big it is, and would concern every individual, whatever secluded life he might be living. Should it happen, its inescapability is too obvious to be; disputed. So is its explosive character. In contrast to this, the environmental crisis is of a cumulative nature. It is just the obscure and intricate pattern of the interaction of all factors that makes it so dangerous. For no single action taken, or decision made, can bring about an immediate catastrophe, nor could there be the last straw or the last step that would set in motion an avalanche of irreversible and immediate events leading to the ultimate gloomy end. It is only step by step that we approach the critical point, were there such a thing as "point" in this context.

3. Consequently, what is needed first and foremost is that we realize the possible adverse impact of the long-range effects of our actions, however noble the motives may seem to us at present, on the entire human race. Out of this realization may come an entirely new approach to the problem, the new approach as proclaimed by Vernadsky of the biosphere governed and operated in accordance with the laws of the human mind. Next comes the urgent need for basic research to get more profound knowledge of the cause-effect relationship, the time factor necessarily taken into account, in the whole realm of human environment, both natural, man-disturbed and man-initiated. Fundamental and irreversible as they may often be, the changes in our environment are not likely to bring mankind to the brink of annihilation overnight. It would take us some time yet to reach there. So let us use the time for learning how to preserve our planet in good shape and in running order for an indefinitely long time.

B. Paragraph Study.

Read paragraph 1.

1. Identify the topic sentence. Try to identify the words which may be somehow associated with the idea expressed by "characterization". Identify four cases of contrast or comparison (use attributes as your guide), to be able to state one of the causes of the present-day environmental problems. 2. What is meant by "the intricately operating whole"? 3. Find the words equivalent to: недостаточно равномерное развитие конкретных областей знания и правильного представления о сложном взаимодействии процессов, происходящих внутри единого целого. 4. Give Russian equivalents of: spectacular though they may appear, it is this very intervention that has landed him. . .; ignoring as it does.

Read paragraph 2.

1. Follow the words a nuclear catastrophe and the environmental problem through their transformations into pronouns. Compare the characteristics of a nuclear catastrophe and of the environmental crisis to see their common and different features. State the main idea of the paragraph. 2. Find the words equivalent to: невозможно скрыться от; характер постепенного нарастания; скрытый и сложный механизм взаимодействия. 3. Identify the words used by the author to express the idea of "danger"; "inescapability"; "cumulative nature"; "critical point". 4. Give Russian equivalents of: no matter how small or big it is; whatever secluded life he might be living] should it happen] for no single action taken, or decision made, can bring about. . . an avalanche of irreversible and immediate events.

Read paragraph 3.

1. Identify the topic sentence. State the most urgent needs of the situation. 2. What is meant by "the new approach", "to reach there" and "the time?" 3. Give Russian equivalents of: first and foremost, however noble the motives may seem to us; to bring mankind to the brink of annihilation overnight; it would take us some time yet to reach there.

Text 9. 1) Read the text to yourself and be ready for a comprehension check-up:

The jigsaw-puzzle * fit of the coastlines on each side of the Atlantic Ocean must have been noticed as soon as the first reliable maps of the New World were prepared. It was as early as 1620 that Francis Bacon called attention to their striking resemblance. He did not go on, however, to suggest that the continents might once have formed a unified land mass. In the succeeding centuries suggestions to this effect were made, but they were far from being well-grounded hypotheses, as it was mainly to some postulated catastrophe, such as the sinking of the mythical Atlantis or the Great Flood that the similarity of the coastlines was ascribed.

The hypothesis of the Continental Drift which is generally accepted nowadays was first presented to scientific community in 1912, but it was not until 50 years later that it gained general currency. When this view of the earth did replace earlier ideas (in the 1960's) it was only because of conclusive evidence derived from discoveries in geophysics and oceanography.

* A set of irregularly cut pieces of pasteboard, wood, or the like, that form a picture or design when fitted together.

2) Check up for comprehension:

1. Identify the dominant word group and follow it through its transformation into its equivalents. 2. What made it possible to notice the

Strange similarity of the coastlines on each side of the Atlantic Ocean? 3. What has been the basic idea underlying all the explanations of this similarity? 4. Why cannot we consider the earlier explanations to be well-grounded hypotheses? 5. What is the principal difference between the currently accepted hypothesis and the earlier ideas? 6. How long did it take the hypothesis of the Continental Drift to gain recognition?

ЧАСТЬ IV