Issue4 by irvine666，果然10多天不碰I手感就不行了...

irvine666

Issue4, 老高频，先列的提纲，尝试搞点新想法出来：

问题本质：如何能够有效地推动一门学科
问题结果：外人的经验和知识并非万能。
1.定义学科的发展过程-提出有两个阶段：1.基础阶段,2.应用阶段
2.在基础阶段中只能通过对学科相关的现象或知识的思考观察和分析来推动学科进步,这个过程当中外部的经验和知识是无法给与实质性帮助的,否则整个学科的定义就会出现偏差.比如生物化学,当物理学也涉及到里面的时候,这个学科就变成了截然不同的另一个学科:生理学(physiological)
3.只有当某个学科进入应用阶段的时候,外部的知识和经验才能够给与其显著的推动.比如只有当考古学(archaeology)发展到实地操作挖掘的时候,地质学(geognosy)才能够给它以实质性的帮助. 经济学发展到认清了经济体制的本质,统计学,社会科学才能够给与它发展的帮助.
4.值得注意的是,某些纯理论学科是没有应用阶段,它们本身就是作为其他学科的基础,比如语言学(linguistics),数学和化学,因此外来的经验对这种学科帮助非常小.

TOPIC: ISSUE4 - "No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."
WORDS: 832          TIME: 01:03:58          DATE: 2009/3/17 19:28:41

Splendid achievement and development in the realm of philosophy has been obtained since preeminent ideologist Russell Bertrand introduced the theory of history to it. The publishing of his opus, A History of Western Philosophy, soon fascinated great wisdom and intelligence to deliberate the causality between searching for help of other disciplines and boosting significant improvement of certain one. Could all fields of study advance considerably under the auspices of knowledge and experience unrelated to them? Obviously, the essence of the question should be attributed to the properties of each discipline, and that issue, as is set forth below, should have distinct answers in different situation.

Retrospecting to the origin of disciplines and scrutinizing their tracks of development, scholars could be able to find out an interesting phenomenon in almost all fields of study that the way one discipline being treated is not consistent, but is divided into two phases: fundamental theory establishment, and using it in application while continuing consummating its professional knowledge. When certain thought first time conjured up in human beings' mind, for the sake of objective truth, our forebears endeavored their best to explain it by their insufficient and obsolete -- in modern view, even unscientific --- knowledge and therefore managed to utilize that incomplete ideology to interpret natural substances and rules; one discipline subsequently emerged. That cause of development should be regarded as the phase of fundamental theory establishment. Then, as is apparent, human beings, as creatures of reason and realism, tried to fully capitalize on the established theories to solve their problems in respects of research, creation and interpretation in all fields. That is another phrase in the development of certain discipline, as is known to all, being entitled as application.

Naturally, were its conception defined as Socrates, knowledge stems from perception that is infallible. Both because each realm of knowledge could have only ONE infallible explanations, and it is precise reflection of knowledge, fundamental theory of one discipline, which influenced significantly by knowledge and experiences of others, which combine theories of related fields of study, and which proned to observe the world of speculation with compromise, should by no means be considered as basis of "that discipline". In other words, when the original speculation of one discipline intensively mixed with some unrelated essential theory of other disciplines, it would certainly lost its principle and become another discipline. Such phenomenon, to be realistic, would be familiar in the phase of fundamental theory establishment, as is demonstrated by the emergence of biochemistry. Before Franz Hofmeister first formulate the new biochemical point of view in a lecture in 1901, there existed a constant qualm and discussion in how to combining relevant disciplines such as chemistry, biology, iatrology, and even physics to constitute a new discipline to satisfy the growing demand for chemical characterization of tissues and body fluids. An outcome of biochemistry was finally come to before long, whereas before its fundamental theory completed, Felix Hoppe-Seyler took iatrology into account and subsequently developed into two discipline called Physiology and Pathology -- a totally new disciplines distinct from biochemistry. Therefore, referring to the knowledge and experience of outsiders in the fundamental theory developing phase, one discipline would be misled rather than being advanced.

However, the situation of consulting outsiders' help would be optimistic in the phase of application. For the materialist view further overshadows the concern with spiritual and emotional satisfactions, how could one discipline fit and serve community would be the key problem. The best way, as is apparent, should be asking for help of others. Actually, cooperation or even promoting mutual improvement in two or several disciplines is normal in modern epoch. Considering some interactions between different disciplines as representative examples, geognosy could help archaeology in analyzing the era of historical remains; social science and statistics could be able to enhance the reliability of economics; and the emergence of X ray in the realm of physics significantly benefit the development of iatrology. Since no field of study could illustrate or reflect the real world, one discipline should rely on the assistance of others to consummate itself.

Considered as opposite directions, one might argue that some fields of discipline could not be boosted by outsiders' knowledge and experience such as math, linguistics, and chemistry. Nonetheless, one principle must be clarified is that not all disciplines have the second phase, the period of application. These fields of study are to serve as pillars and foundation of those splendid temples of practical disciplines. As is self-evident, basic subject, firm and objective as it is, could hardly be affected by those which is applied and utilized every day. Only by persistently observing, analyzing and thinking could one make possible breakthrough in these fields of study.

Controversial situation as it is, while concerning that it is negative or even harmful to bring unrelated idea to fundamental theory of any discipline, the knowledge and experience of outsiders should not be regarded as omnipotent measure in spurring the development of one field of study.

我是胖子

天。。楼主的：定义学科的发展过程-提出有两个阶段：1.基础阶段,2.应用阶段
一下子我感觉把题目可包括的范围加大了。。
佩服！

cicialice

哇塞~~真不愧是斑竹诺~
感觉思路一下子被拓宽了~科技类的好多篇都可以用上吧~谢谢谢谢~~受益匪浅！

comorain

666同学向来语言华丽无比，句式复杂无比。我试着拍一部分吧（没时间），说错了请指正。

Splendid achievement and development in therealm of philosophy has been obtained since preeminent ideologist Russell Bertrand introduced the theory of history to it. The publishing （publication 更合适）of his opus, AHistory of Western Philosophy, soon fascinated great wisdom and intelligence to deliberate the causality between searching for help of other disciplines and boosting significant improvement of certain one.  （如果是我，更愿意改为：……between boosting significant improvement of one specific discipline and searching for help of others）Could all fields of study advance considerably under the auspices of knowledge and experience unrelated to them? Obviously, the essence of the (改为this) question should be attributed to the properties of each discipline, and that issue, as is set forth below, should have distinct answers in different situation.

Retrospecting to the origin of disciplines and scrutinizing their tracks of development, scholars could be able to find out an interesting phenomenon in almost all fields of study that the way one discipline being treated is not consistent, but is divided into two phases: fundamental theory establishment,and using it in application while continuing consummating its professionalknowledge. （相当罗嗦，可改为：Retrospecting to the origin and development of acdemic disciplines, scholars could find out that in almost all fields of study one discipline is developed over two phases rather than one: fundamental theory establishment, and  later application. ）When certain thought (加is，for the first time放在后面) conjured up in human beings' mind,for the sake of objective truth, our forebears endeavored their best to explainit by their insufficient and obsolete -- in modern view, even unscientific ---knowledge and therefore managed （成功地做成？与insufficient/obsolete/incomplete一致吗）to utilize that incomplete ideology to interpret natural substances and rules; one discipline subsequently emerged. That cause of development should be regarded as the phase of fundamental theory establishment. Then, as is apparent, human beings, as creatures of reason andrealism, tried to fully capitalize on the established theories to solve their problems in respects of research, creation and interpretation in all fields. That is another phrase in the development of certain discipline, as is known toall, being entitled as application.

Naturally, were its conception defined as Socrates （这是什么样的倒装结构？）, knowledge stems fromperception that is infallible. Both because each realm of knowledge could haveonly ONE infallible explanations （没有s吧，one）, and it is precise reflection of knowledge, fundamental theory of one discipline, which influenced significantly by knowledge and experiences of others, which combine theories of related fieldsof study, and which proned to observe the world of speculation with compromise,should by no means be considered as basis of "that discipline". （不仅太复杂，而且有错误：看看你的三个which，主谓、时态、语态都一致吗？which is influenced, which combines, which is proned to）In other words, when the original speculation of one discipline intensively mixedwith some unrelated essential theory of other disciplines, it would certainlylost its principle and become another discipline. Such phenomenon, to be realistic,would be familiar in the phase of fundamental theory establishment, as isdemonstrated by the emergence of biochemistry. Before Franz Hofmeister firstformulate(加d) the new biochemical point of view in a lecture in 1901, there existeda constant qualm and discussion in how to combining relevant disciplines suchas chemistry, biology, iatrology, and even physics to constitute a newdiscipline to satisfy the growing demand for chemical characterization oftissues and body fluids. An outcome of biochemistry was finally come to beforelong, whereas before its fundamental theory completed, Felix Hoppe-Seyler tookiatrology into account and subsequently developed into two discipline calledPhysiology and Pathology -- a totally new disciplines distinct from biochemistry.Therefore, referring to the knowledge and experience of outsiders in thefundamental theory developing phase, one discipline would be misled rather thanbeing advanced.

However, the situation of consulting outsiders' help would be optimistic in thephase of application. For the materialist view further overshadows the concernwith spiritual and emotional satisfactions, how could one discipline fit andserve community would be the key problem. The best way, as is apparent, shouldbe asking for help of others. Actually, cooperation or even promoting mutualimprovement in two or several disciplines is normal in modern epoch.Considering some interactions between different disciplines as representativeexamples, geognosy could help archaeology in analyzing the era of historicalremains; social science and statistics could be able to enhance the reliabilityof economics; and the emergence of X ray in the realm of physics significantlybenefit the development of iatrology. Since no field of study could illustrateor reflect the real world, one discipline should rely on the assistance ofothers to consummate itself.

Considered as opposite directions （这句明显主谓不一致：one be considered？我理解，你是想引出反面意见，简单点admittedly即可；按照你的，需要改成：considering an opposite direction）, one might argue that some fields of discipline could not be boosted by outsiders' knowledge and experience such asmath, linguistics, and chemistry. Nonetheless, one principle must be clarified is that not all disciplines have the second phase, the period of application.These fields of study are to serve as pillars and foundation of those splendidtemples of practical disciplines. As is self-evident, basic subject, firm andobjective as it is, could hardly be affected by those which is applied andutilized every day. Only by persistently observing, analyzing and thinkingcould one make possible breakthrough in these fields of study.

Controversial situation as it is, while concerning that it is negative or evenharmful to bring unrelated idea to fundamental theory of any discipline (又一个主谓不一致：It is people, not the knowledge and experience, that concern!), the knowledge and experience of outsiders should not be regarded as omnipotent measure in spurring the development of one field of study.



语言点评：感觉你在写句子，而不是写作文。超级复杂、数量众多的句子摆在一起，读者不得不将注意力放在理解句子上，而忽视了内容。要知道，复杂句像山珍海味，隔三差五吃一吃还行，天天吃非吃出消化不良病不可！这不，写多必有失，语法错误还是挺多的，我只是挑了部分典型的。

irvine666

咳，放上来就是有思想准备了...
偶这种句式的确不值得提倡，有时候写多了自己都不知道前面的内容，很多不一致就出来了。不过已经养成习惯了，不太好改，语法实在是纠结...已经很注意了还是有问题，尤其是时间紧张没空回顾的情况。
另外有这么些不赞成的地方：
1.manage to是设法的意思
2.那个倒装：were its conception defined as... 的确是有来头的，至少偶见到过Russell和Dewey的文章里面用过～
3.开头那句说的是causality因果关系，所以search for help是因，boost是果，顺序我觉得没错
4.恩，因为有个东西一直不很确定，因为while concerning... + 主句 这种句式在新概念上也有，所以刚才查了下WM,果然concerning是个介词～意思是关于，有关，就...而论，论及，所以最后一段while concerning...也是没问题的，只是我那个that有问题。
其他的都很好，感谢指点，下去悔过并开始给文章瘦身...

comorain

Ok，下面是我的回应：

1.manage to是设法的意思

manage to do sth.=succeed in accomplishing or achieving sth. 设法做成。
“设法做，但不知道能否做成”用try to do sth.
有些微妙差异，看这里时我觉得manage与therefore、insufficient/obsolete/incomplete并不是很协调。现在想一想，改为： and later successfully utilized that incomplete ideology to interpret natural substances and rules。（and前后是时间顺序，并不存在因果关系）


2.那个倒装：were its conception defined as... 的确是有来头的，至少偶见到过Russell和Dewey的文章里面用过～

首先，我不懂你在表达什么，能翻译一下吗？其次，defined as Socrates 明显是错误的，不能说某个概念被定义为一个人，defined by？如此的话，这句话有什么实质内容？最后，Russell和Dewey的原文能找出来吧，我们可以仔细对比一下。


3.开头那句说的是causality因果关系，所以search for help是因，boost是果，顺序我觉得没错

causality 后面A和B的顺序倒未必分得那么清楚。我的重点不是调整顺序，而是看不顺certain one，觉得罗嗦且不地道。


4.恩，因为有个东西一直不很确定，因为while concerning... + 主句 这种句式在新概念上也有，所以刚才查了下WM,果然concerning是个介词～意思是关于，有关，就...而论，论及，所以最后一段while concerning...也是没问题的，只是我那个that有问题。

concerning如果是介词的话，它的一般用法是：Concerning this issue, ...。相当与regarding，在日常写作中我也经常用。这里有两点不合适，一是前面跟while，意思不顺；二是后面跟that 从句，不符合惯例。如果你能找出新概念的原文，我们可以继续讨论。

sakuraanne

你背了几遍红包了，从实招来！刚看一句就红包词