【无名组】新一组 第一次习作楼10.25-issue 66
本帖最后由 fadotian 于 2011-10-24 22:16 编辑2011.10.25 练习 ~ 抽象话题
组员 fadotian, rourou, ienglishshow, sunshine
66People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the
most critical of it.
对某一想法或者政策最忠诚的人往往是对其最严厉的人
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you
take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in
which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these
considerations shape your position. 66People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the
most critical of it.
Some people advocate that who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it, which is considered as paradoxical by other people. Yet it is not absolutely the same in the different fields, so the two opposite statements are both somewhat wrong and somewhat true. In addition, since the complexity of people's emotion is too convoluted, different people will choose attitudes relatively in the similar conditions.
Admittedly, scientists are so strict that the purpose of their research is pursuing the perfection in the process and result of the study. When they are committed to an idea, scientists will become most concerned about its purity or perfection. They want to make the theory or idea more reliable and credible so they criticize the process of the demonstration or the accuracy of data. For example, Goldbach Conjecture is still a difficult problem for many mathematicians to solve for hundred of years. The mathematicians continued researching on the topic to demonstrate the conjecture, because they are committed to the Goldbach Conjecture, and they want to make it perfection. Thus in the field of science, scientists make their efforts to improve their theory by criticizing what they committed. Like Einstein, who criticized his own theories in almost twenty of his later life because he committed to the mathematical soundness of his theory but he could not reconcile his theories with the quantum theory.
When the idea or policy, however, means faith or belief, the situation is completely opposite. To the adherents, if there is a belief forming in their mind, they could not change or criticize easily in that why the faith become what it is is that people hold full confidence to it without any suspicion. For example Mussolini who carried out the Fascist policies will never disobey the belief because he committed to it and it rooted in his heart.The same as Martin Luther who committed to his faith launched the reformation movement and changed the Christianity. Sometimes the adherents even attack those who criticize their belief such as Marxist radicals who most mercilessly attack the capitalist democracy. Therefore, people who committed to the belief will not easily criticize it and even uphold it.
When the idea and policy is not concerned with the scientific research or the intense belief, the performance of people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are quite distinctive. If a person is strict to the policy and idea he committed , he will criticize it to want it better and stronger like what the scientists do. While, if a person is compliant and does not want to study deeper in what she committed, she will not criticize it. Hence, it all depends on the character of the individuals. It is hard to have a absolute statement that whether people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.
In conclusion, in the different fields the attitude to what people are committed to is different. Scientists are more inclined to criticize to pursue perfection while adherents defend their faith. But in the common idea or policy the attitudes are according to the people with distinctive features. 66People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the
most critical of it.
The statement contends that one who most deeply committed to an idea or policy would be a person who are most critical of his conception. I have found the assertion is too extreme since the author has confused two commitment of contrary qualities, the believers whose ideas have endured scrupulous consideration and credible people who just idolize some particular notion without cautious examination.
The first type of person, under the contention that being devoted to a specific idea or policy would be one who has accepted the notion in a narrow and incomplete term. In one case, the ideas such people are devoted to are actually deceitful conceptions and hoax behind the the consolable promise, for the well-being of themselves and for the fear of the uncertainty in future, they believe some posthumous wishes which guarantee the felicity of the immotal world. People who firmly adhere to such illusions never ruminate the thoughts in different perspectives and in a logical ways. They even hurt other individuals in evil and brutal way to satiate their own benefit. In another case, some zealots with a particularly strong belief may nurture a wonderful and justifiable idea, however, they lack the ability to think critically---- not to go extreme to employ the notion in every situation. For example, chairman Mao of China are firmly devoted to the notion of the sociolism which pose a boon for the citizens in China, but in latter years, he was too enthusiastic about the effectiveness of his policies, but refuse to admit the disadvantageous aspect of the notion and modified the politic systems adaptive to the economic development, the economic depression and cultural degradation ensued. Therefore, people who are committed to the ideas or policies would be a fanatic egotist, have nothing to do with critical thinking.
As for the other type of people, whose insistence on a particular idea is based on the deep contemplation. At the initial time when they are in touch with the particular idea,, they become suspicious about the notion since they just obtained it through teaching or reading. After being educated and fostered through a variety of theories and methods, they would able understand and polish the notion in different ways. Not only they know the real meaning of the notion, but also they understand the boundaries and situations where the ideas could be used appropriately. Some important notion would become their own stance of value subsequently, constituted part of their principles of lives, despite the devotion to the notion, they are not the rigid and blind fans, rather, they could understand in what situation they could assume them. For example, a devotee for the notion of liberty would approve of the individual freedom, but he or she would not put one person's freedom over another person's benefit. That is the outcome of his or her critical thinking. And for the politicians, they would never be faithful to one policy unless the policy performs very well in a diverse and practical environment. After the critical examination and thinking, they would be committed to a particular ideas, and we could define such person the most critical one.
In a word, people who are crazy about one particular notion are not alway called the most critical ones, for they would have the totally different attitudes toward the notion, the former one who lionize the notion without any suspicion and retrospection, while the latter one, after prudent thinking, committed what ought to be right as part of their values. 2# rourourou_dada
Some people advocate that who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it, which is considered as paradoxical by other people. Yet it is not absolutely the same in the different fields, so the two opposite statements（这里的opposite statements指的是哪两个呢？你上一句话貌似就具体提了一个。） are both somewhat wrong and somewhat true. In addition, since the complexity of people's emotion is too convoluted, different people will choose attitudes relatively in the similar conditions.
Admittedly, scientists are so strict that the purpose of their research is pursuing the perfection in the process and result of the study. When they are committed to an idea, scientists will become most concerned about its purity(我觉得这里用validity比较合适哦。purity: a state of being clean and free from anything harmful)or perfection. They want to make the theory or idea more reliable and credible so they criticize the process of the demonstration or the accuracy of data. For example, Goldbach Conjecture is still a difficult problem for many mathematicians to solve for hundred of years. The mathematicians continued researching on the topic to demonstrate the conjecture, because they are committed to the Goldbach Conjecture（我觉得不是因为他们committed to the Conjecture,是他们想把这个理论变得perfection-对应于你这一段第一句的论点。）, and they want to make it perfection. Thus in the field of science, scientists make their efforts to improve their theory by criticizing what they committed. Like Einstein, who criticized his own theories in almost twenty of his later life because he committed to the mathematical soundness of his theory but he could not reconcile his theories with the quantum theory.（这个例子后面好像还缺少点东西啊，我觉得例子结束后要来个总结，最后he could not reconcile....我觉得和论点无关）
When the idea or policy, however, means faith or belief, the situation is completely opposite. To the adherents, if there is a belief forming in their mind, they could not change or criticize easily in that why the faith become what it is is that people hold full confidence to it（不太确定这句话是不是语法有点问题why sth become what it is +表语从句？） without any suspicion. For example Mussolini who carried out the Fascist policies will never disobey the belief because he committed to it and it rooted in his heart.The same as Martin Luther who committed to his faith launched the reformation movement and changed the Christianity. Sometimes the adherents even attack those who criticize their belief such as Marxist radicals who most mercilessly attack the capitalist democracy. Therefore, people who committed to the belief will not easily criticize it and even uphold it.
When the idea and policy is not concerned with the scientific research or the intense belief, the performance of people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are quite distinctive. If a person is strict to the policy and idea he committed , he will criticize it to want it better and stronger like what the scientists do. While, if a person is compliant and does not want to study deeper in what she committed, she will not criticize it. Hence, it all depends on the character of the individuals. It is hard to have a absolute statement that whether people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.（怎么说呢。我觉得这个intense belief是不是也可以归为这一段的“if a person is compliant and does not want to study deeper in what she committed, she will not criticize it"?)
In conclusion, in the different fields the attitude to what people are committed to is different. Scientists are more inclined to criticize to pursue perfection while adherents defend their faith. But in the common idea or policy the attitudes are according to the people with distinctive features. 本帖最后由 ienglishnow 于 2011-10-25 20:07 编辑
I partly agree with the statement that people who are committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. Whether it is necessary for people to be most critical of the idea or policy that they committed to depends on fields in which it is discussed. In some fields, such as computer science and mathematics, the claim holds true. While in other fields, for example, diplomacy, it comes to wrong.
Consider computer science. Many communities are established to standardize the development of software. Once joining in them, one person or one company must obey and even become critical about the regulations and standards. For instance, Stallman, the father of GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) which enables all the software consisting of open source code to be free. Of course, Stallman was committed to it, so are its members. Any software based on GNU GPL must reveal its source code for the community. So when Linus Torvalds wrote the first Linux kernel, he did not succumbed to its potential profits and share the operating system with all the people. As a result, a large number of Linux versions were invented later, such as Red Hat, Opensuse, Fedora, Ubuntu, all of them are open source and accessible to download freely from Internet. However, software violating the GNU GPL will be punished. For instance, a small Indian IT company named New Totem designed a vehicle entertainment system using GNU GPL modules. But the company sold the software online instead of opening its source code. So Stallman and GNU GPL members sued New Totem for its breaking the rules.
Besides computer science, mathematics is also a field of which many devoted mathematicians critical. In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. Cardano stated without proof that the accuracies of empirical statistics tend to improve with the number of trials. This was then formalized as a law of large numbers. Because it was still not proved, many mathematicians intended to make it perfect by proving it. Finally a special form of the LLN was first proved by Jacob Bernoulli. It took him over 20 years to develop a sufficiently rigorous mathematical proof which was published in his The Art of Conjecturing in 1713. But the study of the LLN did not stop. Further studies have given rise to two prominent forms of the LLN. One is called the "weak" law and the other the "strong" law. These forms do not describe different laws but instead refer to different ways of describing the mode of convergence of the cumulative sample means to the expected value, and the strong form implies the weak.
However, the claim is not always true. Consider diplomacy. When a diplomacy policy or strategy is made, the government officers will try their best to implement it. But the political surroundings of the world and the relationship between two nations are always changing. The officers will change and even overturn their former diplomacy policy accordingly. If they are critical with the former one, they will be limited by it. As a result, the right and appropriate diplomacy policy will be delayed and the nation will become obtuse to the changing diplomacy environment.
In a word, in some fields like computer science and mathematics, people who devoted themselves to an idea will be critical of it. But in other fields, like diplomacy, it’s not necessary for people be critical of these policies they are committed to. 本帖最后由 ienglishnow 于 2011-10-25 20:08 编辑
见楼上。 66 People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.
对于一种想法或者政策最忠实的人往往是那些对其最严厉的人。
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
I wholly agree with the statement that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. There are several reasons why I agree as follows.
To begin with, I want to ask a question about it. Why do these people believe that their ideas or policies are the best? Admittedly, in order to guarantee that their ideas are persuasive, they have a deeply thinking about them before speaking out. Usually, during this process of thinking, they will compare their ideas with others for thousands of times which demonstrate their critical altitude. A good example could give some light to this point. Deng Xiaoping, a great chairman of china, had proposed the policy of reform and open which is a new concept for most Chinese at that time. It is after his deeply thinking and discussing of this new policy that he is extremely sure the efficiency of it. After that, there is a rapid development of china’s economy and this success confirmed the efficiency of Deng’s policy. Hence, without thoroughly compared and thinking, chairman Deng can not be so convinced. By the way, without critical thinking, people can not be deeply committed to their ideas.
Another important reason is that everyone has the responsibility to their voice, especially some important idea or policy. Generally speaking, some ideas or policies may have a significant influence on others, let along that voiced with a resolute altitude. Just image that, if the idea is wrong, it really a pity for the people who follow it. If the follower is a big company, a great many of people or a country, how great lose does it caused. I can think no better illustration than the report in recently. Some people have asserted that the year of 2012 is the last year of the world with a resolute and mysterious altitude. Though their assertion has no scientific evidence to demonstrate, a lot of people still believe in their words for their determined altitude. It is said that some people give up schooling or working, what’s worse, several person even catch melancholia. In a word, in the past days, that assertion really had a quite bad influence on people. However, nowadays it has been convinced that the end of the world is especially far away from us. So the previous assertion is wrong and these who disseminate the rumor about 2012 will pay responsibility for the bad influence on society. In that case, people will be careful and critical to propose their idea or policy for sake of avoiding bad influence on others.
In a word, if a person make sure of the idea or policy, he or she must be critical of it. And only by that, he of she can make sure that it is persuasive and can avoid bad influence on others.
5# ienglishnow
I partly agree with the statement that people who are committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. Whether it is necessary for people to be most critical of the idea or policy that they committed to depends on fields in which it is discussed. In some fields, such as computer science and mathematics, the claim holds true. While in other fields, for example, diplomacy, it comes to(be) wrong.
Consider computer science(语法有问题吧，用when it comes to computer science). Many communities are established to standardize the development of software. Once joining in them, one person or one company must obey and even become critical about the regulations and standards(obey 和critical about 矛盾吧。还有为什么加入了就一定要critical about the regulations and standards呢？）. For instance, Stallman, the father of GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) which enables all the software consisting of open source code to be free. Of course, Stallman was committed to it, so are its members. Any software based on GNU GPL must reveal its source code for the community. So when Linus Torvalds wrote the first Linux kernel, he did not succumbed to its potential profits and share the operating system with all the people. As a result, a large number of Linux versions were invented later, such as Red Hat, Opensuse, Fedora, Ubuntu, all of them are open source and accessible to download freely from Internet(这个因此和你的论点的关系是什么？你是说critical about 的好处吗？但是topic说的是a committed person 和critical about the idea的关系）. However, software violating the GNU GPL will be punished. For instance, a small Indian IT company named New Totem designed a vehicle entertainment system using GNU GPL modules. But the company sold the software online instead of opening its source code. So Stallman and GNU GPL members sued New Totem for its breaking the rules.
Besides computer science, mathematics is also a field of which many devoted mathematicians critical. In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. Cardano stated without proof that the accuracies of empirical statistics tend to improve with the number of trials. This was then formalized as a law of large numbers. Because it was still not proved, many mathematicians intended to make it perfect by proving it. Finally a special form of the LLN was first proved by Jacob Bernoulli. It took him over 20 years to develop a sufficiently rigorous mathematical proof which was published in his The Art of Conjecturing in 1713（感觉例子叙述的很多方面和论点无关啊，好像一直在讨论critical的问题，和committed to 一点关系没有）. But the study of the LLN did not stop. Further studies have given rise to two prominent forms of the LLN. One is called the "weak" law and the other the "strong" law. These forms do not describe different laws but instead refer to different ways of describing the mode of convergence of the cumulative sample means to the expected value, and the strong form implies the weak.
However, the claim is not always true（但是claim就是说committed to的人就critical啊，你下面这个讲的正好是印证claim的观点吧，为什么说not always true？）. Consider diplomacy. When a diplomacy policy or strategy is made, the government officers will try their best to implement it. But the political surroundings of the world and the relationship between two nations are always changing. The officers will change and even overturn their former diplomacy policy accordingly. If they are critical with the former one, they will be limited by it. As a result, the right and appropriate diplomacy policy will be delayed and the nation will become obtuse to the changing diplomacy environment.
In a word, in some fields like computer science and mathematics, people who devoted themselves to an idea will be critical of it. But in other fields, like diplomacy, it’s not necessary for people be critical of these policies they are committed to. 4# fadotian
The statement contends that one who most deeply committed to an idea or policy would be a person who are most critical of his conception. I have found the assertion is too extreme since the author has confused two commitment of contrary qualities, the believers whose ideas have endured scrupulous consideration and credible people who just idolize some particular notion without cautious examination.
The first type of person, under the contention that being devoted to a specific idea or policy would be one who has accepted the notion in a narrow and incomplete term. In one case, the ideas such people are devoted to are actually deceitful conceptions and hoax[与谁并列？没看懂……] behind the the consolable promise, for the well-being of themselves and for the fear of the uncertainty in future, [,不能引导句子]they believe some posthumous wishes which guarantee the felicity of the immotal world. People who firmly adhere to such illusions never ruminate the thoughts in different perspectives and in a logical ways. They even hurt other individuals in evil and brutal way to satiate their own benefit. In another case, some zealots with a particularly strong belief may nurture a wonderful and justifiable idea, however, they lack the ability to think critically---- not to go extreme to employ the notion in every situation. For example, chairman Mao of China are firmly devoted to the notion of the sociolism which pose a boon for the citizens in China, but in latter years, he was too enthusiastic about the effectiveness of his policies, but refuse to admit the disadvantageous aspect of the notion and modified the politic systems adaptive to the economic development, [,不能引导句子]the economic depression and cultural degradation ensued. Therefore, people who are committed to the ideas or policies would be a fanatic egotist, have nothing to do with critical thinking.
As for the other type of people, whose insistence on a particular idea is based on the deep contemplation. At the initial time when they are in touch with the particular idea,, they become suspicious about the notion since they just obtained it through teaching or reading. After being educated and fostered through a variety of theories and methods, they would able understand and polish the notion in different ways. Not only they know the real meaning of the notion, but also they understand the boundaries and situations where the ideas could be used appropriately. Some important notion would become their own stance of value subsequently, constituted part of their principles of lives, despite the devotion to the notion, they are not the rigid and blind fans, rather, they could understand in what situation they could assume them. For example, a devotee for the notion of liberty would approve of the individual freedom, but he or she would not put one person's freedom over another person's benefit. That is the outcome of his or her critical thinking. And for the politicians, they would never be faithful to one policy unless the policy performs very well in a diverse and practical environment. After the critical examination and thinking, they would be committed to a particular ideas, and we could define such person the most critical one.
In a word, people who are crazy about one particular notion are not alway called the most critical ones, for they would have the totally different attitudes toward the notion, the former one who lionize the notion without any suspicion and retrospection, while the latter one, after prudent thinking, committed what ought to be right as part of their values.
[题干好像不是说的人是不是critical而是人对于他们committed的是事情是不是critical] 本帖最后由 fadotian 于 2011-10-25 20:44 编辑
7# sunshine1191
I wholly agree with the statement that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. There are several reasons why I agree as follows.
To begin with, I want to ask a question about it（直接说提出一个问题吧，不用问了吧）. Why do these people believe that their ideas or policies are the best? Admittedly, in order to guarantee that their ideas are persuasive, they have a deeply thinking about them before speaking out. Usually, during this process of thinking, they will compare their ideas with others for thousands of times which demonstrate their critical altitude. A good example could give some light to this point. Deng Xiaoping, a great chairman of china, had proposed the policy of reform and open（open policy) which is a new concept for most Chinese at that time. It is after his deeply thinking and discussing of this new policy that he is extremely sure the efficiency of it. After that, there is(was) a rapid development of china’s economy and this success confirmed the efficiency of Deng’s policy. Hence, without thoroughly compared and thinking, chairman Deng can not be so convinced. By the way(这种用法很不正式）, without critical thinking, people can not be deeply committed to their ideas.
Another important reason is that everyone has the responsibility to their voice（to their voice是什么意思？）, especially some important idea or policy(这里要复数）. Generally speaking, some ideas or policies may have a significant influence on others, let along that voiced with a resolute altitude. Just image that, if the idea is wrong, it really a pity for the people who follow it.（你这一段的论点是什么） If the follower is a big company, a great many of people or a country, how great lose does it caused（这句话没有写完整哎，没有谓语和宾语）. I can think no better illustration than the report in recently. Some people have asserted that the year of 2012 is the last year of the world with a resolute and mysterious altitude. Though their assertion has no scientific evidence to demonstrate, a lot of people still believe in their words for their determined altitude. It is said that some people give up schooling or working, what’s worse, several person even catch melancholia. In a word, in the past days, that assertion really had a quite bad influence on people. However, nowadays it has been convinced that the end of the world is especially far away from us. So the previous assertion is wrong and these who disseminate the rumor about 2012 will pay responsibility for the bad influence on society. In that case, people will be careful and critical to propose their idea or policy for sake of avoiding bad influence on others(我觉得你这一段没有出现comitted to idea的内容，只是说了为什么要critical ）.
In a word, if a person make sure of the idea or policy, he or she must be critical of it. And only by that, he of she can make sure that it is persuasive and can avoid bad influence on others.
还有全文的altitudes 应该为attitudes 3# fadotian
The statement contends that one who most deeply committed to an idea or policy would be a person who are most critical of his conception. I have found the assertion is too extreme since the author has confused two commitment of contrary qualities, the believers whose ideas have endured scrupulous consideration and credible people who just idolize some particular notion without cautious examination. 【分为两种类型的人】
The first type of person, under the contention that being devoted to a specific idea or policy would be one who has accepted the notion in a narrow and incomplete term. In one case, the ideas such people are devoted to are actually deceitful conceptions and hoax behind the the consolable （应该是consolatory）promise, for the well-being of themselves and for the fear of the uncertainty in future, they believe some posthumous wishes which guarantee the felicity of the immotal（immortal） world. People who firmly adhere to such illusions never ruminate the thoughts in different perspectives and in a logical ways. They even hurt other individuals in evil and brutal way to satiate their own benefit. In another case, some zealots with a particularly strong belief may nurture a wonderful and justifiable idea, however, they lack the ability to think critically---- not to go extreme to employ the notion in every situation. （我觉得这个情况不太现实，鉴于下面的例子可以说太自满导致不能think critically）For example, chairman Mao of China are firmly devoted to the notion of the sociolism （socialism）which pose（posed） a boon for the citizens in China, but in latter years, he was too enthusiastic about the effectiveness of his policies, but（之前有个but了） refuse to admit the disadvantageous aspect of the notion and modified the politic systems adaptive to the economic development, the economic depression and cultural degradation ensued. Therefore, people who are committed to the ideas or policies would be a fanatic egotist, have nothing to do with critical thinking. 第二种情况开头段没有提，可以提一下
As for the other type of people, whose insistence on a particular idea is based on the deep contemplation. At the initial time when they are in touch with the particular idea,, they become suspicious about the notion since they just obtained it through teaching or reading. After being educated and fostered through a variety of theories and methods, they would able understand and polish the notion in different ways. Not only they know the real meaning of the notion, but also they understand the boundaries and situations where the ideas could be used appropriately. 【承接上句，逻辑连贯】Some important notion would become their own stance of value subsequently, constituted part of their principles of lives, despite the devotion to the notion, they are not the rigid and blind fans, rather, they could understand in what situation they could assume them. For example, a devotee for the notion of liberty would approve of the individual freedom, but he or she would not put one person's freedom over another person's benefit. That is the outcome of his or her critical thinking. And for the politicians, they would never be faithful to one policy unless the policy performs very well in a diverse and practical environment. After the critical examination and thinking, they would be committed to a particular ideas, and we could define such person the most critical one.你的意思是人们经过critical thinking确定自己的想法，我理解的题目的意思是对自己的忠诚的想法进行criticize……我觉得你理解得蛮对的，但也不知道自己理解得可不可行……
In a word, people who are crazy about one particular notion are not alway called the most critical ones, for they would have the totally different attitudes toward the notion, the former one who lionize the notion without any suspicion and retrospection（这是追忆的意思）, while the latter one, after prudent thinking, committed what ought to be right as part of their values. 2# rourourou_dada
Some people advocate that who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it, which is considered as paradoxical by other people.[题干中好像没有some people和other people吧？不太明白~]Yet it is not absolutely the same in the different fields, so the two opposite statements are both somewhat wrong and somewhat true. In addition, since the complexity of people's emotion is too convoluted, different people will choose attitudes relatively in the similar conditions.
Admittedly, scientists are so strict that the purpose of their research is pursuing the perfection in the process and result of the study. When they are committed to an idea, scientists will become most concerned about its purity or perfection. They want to make the theory or idea more reliable and credible so they criticize the process of the demonstration or the accuracy of data. For example, Goldbach Conjecture is still a difficult problem for many mathematicians to solve for hundred of years. The mathematicians continued researching on the topic to demonstrate the conjecture, because they are committed to the Goldbach Conjecture, and they want to make it perfection. Thus in the field of science, scientists make their efforts to improve their theory by criticizing what they committed. Like Einstein, who criticized his own theories in almost twenty of his later life because he committed to the mathematical soundness of his theory but he could not reconcile his theories with the quantum theory.
When the idea or policy, however, means faith or belief, the situation is completely opposite. To the adherents, if there is a belief forming in their mind, they could not change or criticize easily in that why the faith become what it is is that people hold full confidence to it without any suspicion. For example Mussolini who carried out the Fascist policies will never disobey the belief because he committed to it and it rooted in his heart.The same as Martin Luther who committed to his faith launched the reformation movement and changed the Christianity. Sometimes the adherents even attack those who criticize their belief such as Marxist radicals who most mercilessly attack the capitalist democracy. Therefore, people who committed to the belief will not easily criticize it and even uphold it.
When the idea and policy is not concerned with the scientific research or the intense belief, the performance of people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are quite distinctive. If a person is strict to the policy and idea he committed , he will criticize it to want it better and stronger like what the scientists do. While, if a person is compliant and does not want to study deeper in what she committed, she will not criticize it. Hence, it all depends on the character of the individuals. It is hard to have a absolute statement that whether people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.
In conclusion, in the different fields the attitude to what people are committed to is different. Scientists are more inclined to criticize to pursue perfection while adherents defend their faith. But in the common idea or policy the attitudes are according to the people with distinctive features.
[咱两思路一致，写的别我好多了，向你学习！] rourou's issue revised by sunshine
66People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the
most critical of it.
Some people advocate that who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it, which is considered as paradoxical by other people. Yet it is not absolutely the same in the different fields, so the two opposite statements are both somewhat wrong and somewhat true. In addition, since the complexity of people's emotion is too convoluted, different people will choose attitudes relatively in the similar conditions.表明态度，中立。
Admittedly, scientists are so strict that the purpose of their research is pursuing the perfection in the process and result of the study. When they are committed to an idea, scientists will become most concerned about its purity or perfection. They want to make the theory or idea more reliable and credible so they criticize the process of the demonstration or the accuracy of data. For example, Goldbach Conjecture is still a difficult problem for many mathematicians to solve for hundred of years. The mathematicians continued researching on the topic to demonstrate the conjecture, because they are committed to the Goldbach Conjecture, and they want to make it perfection. Thus in the field of science, scientists make their efforts to improve their theory by criticizing what they committed. Like Einstein, who criticized his own theories in almost twenty of his later life because he committed to the mathematical soundness of his theory but he could not reconcile his theories with the quantum theory. 首句摆明了论点，说科学家对自己的idea追求完美，所以很对过程以及结果很strict.举的例子也挺好的，要是结尾能再总结下，首尾呼应，就更好了。
When the idea or policy, however, means faith or belief, the situation is completely opposite. To the adherents, if there is a belief forming in their mind, they could not change or criticize easily in that why the faith become what it is is that people hold full confidence to it without any suspicion. （作为第二条论点，最好写得清楚简明一点。）For example Mussolini who carried out the Fascist policies will never disobey the belief because he committed to it and it rooted in his heart. The same as Martin Luther who committed to his faith launched the reformation movement and changed the Christianity. Sometimes the adherents even attack those who criticize their belief such as Marxist radicals who most mercilessly attack the capitalist democracy. （虽然例证很多，但是没有进行分析议论。）Therefore, people who committed to the belief will not easily criticize it and even uphold it.结论句，忠实于自己观点的人不会轻易的批判自己的观点，而你的例子人们相信他们的观点，有时会攻击批判他们观点的人。这样看来，你的这两个对象好像不吻合呢。
When the idea and policy is not concerned with the scientific research or the intense belief, the performance of people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are quite distinctive. If a person is strict to the policy and idea he committed , he will criticize it to want it better and stronger like what the scientists do. While, if a person is compliant and does not want to study deeper in what she committed, she will not criticize it. Hence, it all depends on the character of the individuals. It is hard to have a（an） absolute statement that whether people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.这段讲不同的人，态度不同，情况也不同。这段论述得挺好的。
In conclusion, in the different fields the attitude to what people are committed to is different. Scientists are more inclined to criticize to pursue perfection while adherents defend their faith. But in the common idea or policy the attitudes are according to the people with distinctive features.
结尾挺好的，但是怎么感觉最后两段表达意思差不多，好像有两个结尾段似的。
还有一点，文章如果直接分两种情况写，一种是一类strict to the policy and idea的人，如科学家，一种使一类compliant and does not want to study deeper的人，可能更好。
看来这篇文章还是持中立态度，分情况下，比较好写。 5# ienglishnow
I partly agree with the statement that people who are committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. Whether it is necessary for people to be most critical of the idea or policy that they committed to depends on fields in which it is discussed. In some fields, such as computer science and mathematics, the claim holds true. While in other fields, for example, diplomacy, it comes to wrong.
Consider computer science. Many communities are established to standardize the development of software. Once joining in them, one person or one company must obey and even become critical about the regulations and standards. （这里最好讲一下原因再讲例子）For instance, Stallman, the father of GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) which enables all the software consisting of open source code to be free.（这句话没有谓语……） Of course, Stallman was committed to it, so are its members. 这就话最好换种说法Any software based on GNU GPL must reveal its source code for the community. So when Linus Torvalds wrote the first Linux kernel, he did not succumbed to its potential profits and share the operating system with all the people. As a result, a large number of Linux versions were invented later, such as Red Hat, Opensuse, Fedora, Ubuntu, all of them are open source and accessible to download freely from Internet. However, software violating the GNU GPL will be punished. For instance, a small Indian IT company named New Totem designed a vehicle entertainment system using GNU GPL modules. But the company sold the software online instead of opening its source code. So Stallman and GNU GPL members sued New Totem for its breaking the rules. 例子好长啊（计算机知识不够丰富），不过不太明白例子到底要讲什么，说理不够，例子最后一两句就结束。而且critical并不是指批评吧，而是挑剔，例子感觉不副
Besides computer science, mathematics is also a field of which many devoted mathematicians critical. In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment （for）a large number of times. Cardano stated without proof that the accuracies of empirical statistics tend to improve with the number of trials. This was then formalized as a law of large numbers. Because it was still not proved, many mathematicians intended to make it perfect by proving it. Finally a special form of the LLN was first proved by Jacob Bernoulli. It took him over 20 years to develop a sufficiently rigorous mathematical proof which was published in his The Art of Conjecturing in 1713. But the study of the LLN did not stop. Further studies have given rise to two prominent forms of the LLN. One is called the "weak" law and the other the "strong" law. These forms do not describe different laws but instead refer to different ways of describing the mode of convergence of the cumulative sample means to the expected value, and the strong form implies the weak.例子太长，是上一段的重复，不过这个例子和我的哥德巴赫猜想有点像……
However, the claim is not always true. Consider diplomacy. When a diplomacy policy or strategy is made, the government officers will try their best to implement it. But the political surroundings of the world and the relationship between two nations are always changing. The officers will change and even overturn their former diplomacy policy accordingly. If they are critical with the former one, they will be limited by it. 理由详细扩展一下比较好As a result, the right and appropriate diplomacy policy will be delayed and the nation will become obtuse to the changing diplomacy environment. 我觉得这段写外交其实还是critical，这段可以在补充说明一下
In a word, in some fields like computer science and mathematics, people who devoted themselves to an idea will be critical of it. But in other fields, like diplomacy, it’s not necessary for people be critical of these policies they are committed to. 7# sunshine1191
I wholly agree with the statement that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. There are several reasons why I agree as follows.
To begin with, I want to ask a question about it. Why do these people believe that their ideas or policies are the best? Admittedly, in order to guarantee that their ideas are persuasive, they have a deeply thinking about them before speaking out. Usually, during this process of thinking, they will compare their ideas with others for thousands of times which demonstrate their critical altitude. A good example could give some light to this point. Deng Xiaoping, a great chairman of china, had proposed the policy of reform and open which is a new concept for most Chinese at that time. It is after his deeply thinking and discussing of this new policy that he is extremely sure the efficiency of it. After that, there is a rapid development of china’s economy and this success confirmed the efficiency of Deng’s policy. Hence, without thoroughly compared and thinking, chairman Deng can not be so convinced. By the way, [说服力不强]without critical thinking, people can not be deeply committed to their ideas.
Another important reason is that everyone has the responsibility to their voice, especially some important idea or policy. Generally speaking, some ideas or policies may have a significant influence on others, let along that voiced with a resolute altitude. Just image that, if the idea is wrong, it really a pity for the people who follow it. If the follower is a big company, a great many of people or a country, how great lose does it caused. I can think no better illustration than the report in recently. Some people have asserted that the year of 2012 is the last year of the world with a resolute and mysterious altitude. Though their assertion has no scientific evidence to demonstrate, a lot of people still believe in their words for their determined altitude. It is said that some people give up schooling or working, what’s worse, several person even catch melancholia. In a word, in the past days, that assertion really had a quite bad influence on people. However, nowadays it has been convinced that the end of the world is especially far away from us. So the previous assertion is wrong and these who disseminate the rumor about 2012 will pay responsibility for the bad influence on society. In that case, people will be careful and critical to propose their idea or policy for sake of avoiding bad influence on others.
In a word, if a person make sure of the idea or policy, he or she must be critical of it. And only by that, he of she can make sure that it is persuasive and can avoid bad influence on others.[我觉得作文题干中的who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy是给定的前提，我们主要是发表对are or not the most critical of it的看法. ]
页:
[1]
2