Issue31 我也发一篇，持反对观点，请大家指点
Issue31"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
－－－－－－－正文－－－－－－－－－－
In modern society, where science and technology are playing an increasingly role in accelerating societal development, all sorts of researches, which are commonly accepted as the impetus to progress of science and technology, have been paid greater and greater attention to by nations, even companies around the world. Such a phenomenon is possibly based on the conception that "money spent on research is almost a good investment" as suggested in the title statement. However, I hold a negative attitude towards this assumption for its superficial and hasty assertion.
First of all, though diversity is inevitable and allowed, the fundamental characteristics of a " good investment "should fulfill the following two traits: 1) more benefits than that of the investment are to be obtained from it in short term or long period; 2) no side effects detrimental to others will be elicited. Admittedly, among different entities, for example among an individual, a country and the scientific world, there may be differences in the norms of a good investment, the two listed above can be easily accepted as commonalities.
With the criteria of a good investment, we can deduce without too many difficulties the reason why some researches are beneficial and accordingly being highly supported. Research is the exploration of the unknown for the true answers to our questions, and sometimes for lasting solutions to our enduring problems. Thanks to such a research, the problems solved, new technologies developed, useful equipments manufactured, people's lives standards improved and hence more profits will come. The research of radioactivity, which has finally led to the starting point for cancer treatment, for the dating techniques used on ancient objects, rocks and the universe, and for molecular biology and modern genetics, is a good case in point. On the other hand, research is also the chief means by which humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Through the research held in the outer space, for example in the satellite, our desire and wonder on how the plants perform with no gravity can be satisfied. In the mean while, scientists can gain large amounts of information, which may be critical to later experiments or breakthrough. In addition, some researches seemingly controversial turn out to be greatly beneficial in the near or far future. Copernicus’ theory of heliocentric is a good case in point. All these researches accommodate the criteria of a good investment.
However, though plenty of examples as good investments exist, it does not necessarily mean that all of them are bound to be fit to the fundamental norms. In modern society, we can even find out some false researches. The following analysis can illustrate this. Firstly, the pristine character of scientific research has been undermined by some researchers fabricating the results to achieve their own profit. To invest such so called researches can merely offer chances to mar the dignity of scientific researches. Secondly, scientists, as the common human beings as a whole, are curiosity driven in dealing with their jobs, which leads to improper even immoral researches. A case lending strong proof to it is the experiment held by some scientists to clone human beings, which inevitably will rouse ethical problems. To elicit good investments, strict censorship should be imposed on the researches. Neither does a fantasy to invent a machine with inexhaustible energy nor the imaginary fiction to send human to explore the surface of the sun can make any sense to the investor, the nation as a whole or the scientific world. And controversial ones serve a large portion of researches like those.
Further more, if the border of research can be extended to fields such as art and social science, the issue whether a research is a good investment is in deep doubt. The new is not bound to be the better. New styles in art or new policies in business management can meet inevitable defeat if they are ignorant to customs of the society. Researches on such issues should be avoided in advance, for any fund on them is to be a waste of resources.
To sum up, whether a research is a good investment is complex issue, which involves careful, comprehensive and profound censorship. Though circumstances where no censorship can easily be applied may come into occurrence, the notion of not making investment blindly should be well sustained in mind.
---------------------- Written on JUL 30, 21:20 P.M.
Total Words: 743 Time Consumption 75min 我觉得楼主写得很不错！！
语言流畅，说理也较全面，向你学习！
另外，一个小疑惑：第4个body说到：应该首先尽量避免投资艺术与社会科学的研究， 用“The new is not bound to be the better. New styles in art or new policies in business management can meet inevitable defeat if they are ignorant to customs of the society. ”论证，是不是有点太绝对了？
通过对它们的研究可能是创新，但也可能是总结经验，探究历史背景...从而使人们更全面考虑问题来做出商业决策吧
（纯属菜鸟意见，可能是自己钻牛角尖咯） 郁闷！刚评了一半居然死机！不甘心，卷土重来！ In modern society, where science and technology are playing an increasingly （明白你的意思，只是出现语法问题拉） role in accelerating societal development, all sorts of researches, which are commonly accepted as the impetus to progress of science and technology, have been paid greater and greater attention to by nations, even companies around the world. Such a phenomenon is possibly based on the conception that "money spent on research is almost a good investment" as suggested in the title statement. However, I hold a negative attitude towards this assumption for its superficial and hasty assertion.
First of all, though diversity is inevitable and allowed, the fundamental characteristics of a " good investment "should fulfill the following two traits: 1) more benefits than that of the investment are to be obtained from it in short term or long period; 2) no side effects detrimental to others will be elicited. Admittedly, among different entities , （好词！） for example among an individual, a country and the scientific world, there may be differences in the norms of a good investment, the two listed above can be easily accepted as commonalities. （先自建标准，赞同！）
With the criteria of a good investment, we can deduce without too many difficulties （换个easily加在动词前好不好？） the reason why some researches are beneficial and accordingly being highly supported. Research is the exploration of the unknown for the true answers to our questions, and sometimes for lasting solutions to our enduring problems. Thanks to such a research, the problems solved, new technologies developed, useful equipments manufactured, people's lives standards improved and hence more profits will come. The research of radioactivity, which has finally led to the starting point for cancer treatment, for the dating techniques used on ancient objects, rocks and the universe, and for molecular biology and modern genetics, is a good case in point. On the other hand, research is also the chief means by which humans （可数？） attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Through the research held in the outer space, for example in the satellite, our desire and wonder on how the plants perform with no gravity can be satisfied. In the mean while, scientists can gain large amounts of information, which may be critical to later experiments or breakthrough. In addition, some researches seemingly controversial turn out to be greatly beneficial in the near or far future. Copernicus’ theory of heliocentric is a good case in point. All these researches accommodate the criteria of a good investment. （这一段语言运用很好，几个排比也很有气势，比喻尤其精妙！只是我好像觉得在老外的280篇中见过其兄弟姊妹。哈， 也可能是你语言运用得如此之娴熟以至于我嫉妒不已臆想出来的！别介意哈！）
However, though plenty of examples as good investments exist, it does not necessarily mean that all of them are bound to be fit to the fundamental norms. In modern society, we can even find out some false researches. The following analysis can illustrate this. Firstly, the pristine character of scientific research has been undermined by some researchers fabricating the results to achieve their own profit. To invest such so called researches can merely offer chances to mar the dignity of scientific researches. Secondly, scientists, as the common human beings as a whole, are curiosity driven in dealing with their jobs, which leads to improper even immoral researches. A case lending strong proof to it is the experiment held by some scientists to clone human beings, which inevitably will rouse ethical problems. To elicit good investments, strict censorship should be imposed on the researches. Neither does a fantasy to invent a machine with inexhaustible energy nor the imaginary fiction to send human to explore the surface of the sun can make any sense to the investor, the nation as a whole or the scientific world. And controversial ones serve a large portion of researches like those.（没什么毛病可挑的，基本到位）
Further more, if the border of research can be extended to fields such as art and social science, the issue whether a research is a good investment is in deep doubt. The new is not bound to be the better. New styles in art or new policies in business management can meet inevitable defeat if they are ignorant to customs of the society. Researches on such issues should be avoided in advance, for any fund on them is to be a waste of resources.（这一段强烈不赞！太牵强了！）
To sum up, whether a research is a good investment is （a） complex issue, which involves careful, comprehensive and profound censorship. Though circumstances where no censorship can easily be applied may come into occurrence, the notion of not making investment blindly should be well sustained in mind.（结尾段还成） To No.2
我也觉得有太绝对的毛病，只是由于时间关系，不想作太多的论述了。
谢谢No.2 To No.4
第三段确实有些观点是参考了别人的，不过不知道是在哪里了。
对于第五段，确实很牵强，只是觉得是否可以另辟蹊径，不过看来还是不要的比较好。
谢谢No.4 有空的话能否也帮我审查审查？多谢了！ 在哪里？ 粘过来了！
Issue218 "In order for any work of art-whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song-to have merit, it must be understandable to most people."
I concede that one can only evaluate any work of art on the basis of understanding it first. However, the merit of an artwork is too complicated and sophisticated to simply judge by the viewer, even the artist does not enjoy this privilege. Thus, we cannot arbitrarily assert that only the understandable artwork has merit, and that is not cogent in both logical and empirical sense.
First of all, in my point of view, the merit of an artwork lies within three categories: physical, personal, and social merit. One artwork can have all the three kind merit, or have one or two of them, and I deem that the exactly absent of merit of artwork, as long as it is an “artwork” in effect, whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song , is a rare circumstance.
Work of art that is created to perform some service has physical merit. For instance, a Japanese bowl is art that performs a physical merit in the tea ceremony. Conversely, a fur-covered teacup from the Dada movement has no physical merit. If you see a Fijian war club you may assume that, however wonderful the craftsmanship may be, it was created to perform the physical merit of smashing skulls.
Work of art has social merit when it addresses aspects of (collective) life, as opposed to one person's point of view or experience. For example, public artwork in 1930s Germany had an overwhelming symbolic theme. Did this artwork exert influence on the German population? Decidedly so. As did political and patriotic posters in Allied countries during the same time.
The personal merit of artwork are the most difficult to explain in any great detail. There are many of them, and they vary from person to person. An artist may create out of a need for self-expression or gratification. S/he might have wanted to communicate a thought or point to the viewer. Perhaps the artist was trying to provide an aesthetic experience, both for self and viewers. A piece might have been meant to "merely" entertain others. Sometimes a piece isn't meant to have any meaning at all.
On a slightly loftier plane, work of art may serve the personal merit of control. It has been used to attempt to exert magical control over time, or the seasons or even the acquisition of food. It is also used to bring order to a messy and disorderly world. Conversely, it can be used to create chaos when an artist feels life is too staid and ordinary. It can also be therapeutic-for both the artist and the viewer.
We, viewers are half of the equation in assigning merit of artwork-as mentioned earlier. These personal merit apply to us, as well as the artist. It all adds up to literally billions of variables when trying to figure out the personal merit of any artwork. We may do not penetrate the artist’s intended or actual messages, but how we react, as individuals, to both them is actually one of the components of an artwork’s “content”, which is idea-based and means (1) what the artist meant to portray, (2) what the artist actually did portray and (3) how we react. Take a case in point: an individual with a strong background in tradition Chinese ceramics might find meaning in the symbolism and decorative and technical qualities of Ah Xian’s China series. Another viewer might link Ah Xian’s reworking of traditional Chinese decorative techniques to Postmodernism. Yet that does not impede her/him enjoying the merit of this artwork. at all, cause s/he might respond more personally and emotionally to the way the human form has been represented in the artwork..
Additionally, the merit of an artwork can also change over time. For example, contemporary viewers might not understand the symbolism that was used in many early Christian religious paintings. Even in a relatively short span of time, the merit of an artwork can change because of new experiences an knowledge that we acquire as viewers. For example, consider the spectacle of the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics. Its strongly nationalistic spirit and the extensive use of inflatable, may give many viewers a new context for looking at works in Chritopher Langton’s Souvenir series. Therefore, through understandability to judge the merit of an artwork is a bit too in vain.
In a word, for the reasons above, I disagree with the speaker’s assertion.
(字数：731)
提纲：基本观点：几乎完全反对原文观点，但在文章开头有个小让步，所以算是有保留的反对吧！严格来说还不算是绝对地一边倒。
B1. 任何艺术作品都是有价值的（只要它的确是“艺术作品”）。[从根本上驳斥原文的观点]其可以具有我文中所归类的三种形式的价值的任意组合。
B2. 小析第一种价值形式——物理的（有形的价值）
B3. 再谈第二种价值形式——社会价值
B4.重点论说第三种价值——个人体会(到的价值)
B5.B6 进一步阐述第三种价值，并于B6段尾举出反例驳斥原文观点
B7.补充性观点：艺术作品的价值会随着时间的变迁而发生变化，因而简单得通过其易理解程度去对之加以评价是做的无用功。
第一棵椰树，种得很是辛苦哪！希望诸位大侠能不遗余力的鞭笞它（嘿，不是我哦！）！无须浇太多水。它需要的是一个更艰苦的环境以适应未来无穷的挑战！我替这棵小树苗提前谢过各位了！ Issue218 "In order for any work of art-whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song-to have merit, it must be understandable to most people."
I concede that one can only evaluate any work of art on the basis of understanding it first. However, the merit of an art work is too complicated and sophisticated to be simply judge /judged by the viewer, even the artist does not enjoy this privilege.（太绝对了吧，加上一些程度词会更严谨些） Thus, we cannot arbitrarily assert that only the understandable artwork has merit, and that is not cogent in both logical and empirical sense.
First of all, in my point of view, the merit of an artwork lies within three categories: physical, personal, and social merit. One artwork can have all the three kind of merits, or have one or two of them, and I deem that the exact absence of merit of artwork, as long as it is an “artwork” in effect, whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song , is a rare circumstance.
Work of art that is created to perform some service has physical merit. For instance, a Japanese bowl is art that performs a physical merit in the tea ceremony. Conversely, a fur-covered teacup from the Dada movement has no physical merit.(没看明白的说) If you see a Fijian war club you may assume that, however wonderful the craftsmanship may be, it was created to perform the physical merit of smashing skulls.
Work of art has social merit when it addresses aspects of (collective) life, as opposed to one person's point of view or experience. For example, public artwork in 1930s Germany had an overwhelming symbolic theme. Did this artwork exert influence on the German population? Decidedly so. As did political and patriotic posters in Allied countries during the same time.（没有说明是merit）
The personal merit of artwork are the most difficult to explain in any great detail. There are many of them, and they vary from person to person. An artist may create out of a need for self-expression or gratification. S/he might have wanted to communicate a thought or point to the viewer. Perhaps the artist was trying to provide an aesthetic experience, both for self and viewers. A piece might have been meant to "merely" entertain others. Sometimes a piece isn't meant to have any meaning at all.
On a slightly loftier plane,（我喜欢） work of art may serve the personal merit of control. It has been used to attempt to exert magical control over time, or the seasons or even the acquisition of food. It is also used to bring order to a messy and disorderly world. Conversely, it can be used to create chaos when an artist feels life is too staid and ordinary. It can also be therapeutic-for both the artist and the viewer.
We, viewers are half of the equation in assigning merit of artwork-as mentioned earlier. These personal merit apply to us, as well as the artist. It all adds up to literally billions of variables when trying to figure out the personal merit of any artwork. We may do not penetrate the artist’s intended or actual messages, but how we react, as individuals, to both them is actually one of the components of an artwork’s “content”（有深度）, which is idea-based and means (1) what the artist meant to portray, (2) what the artist actually did portray and (3) how we react. Take a case in point: an individual with a strong background in traditional Chinese ceramics might find meaning in the symbolism and decorative and technical qualities of Ah Xian’s China series. Another viewer might link Ah Xian’s reworking of traditional Chinese decorative techniques to Postmodernism. Yet that does not impede her/his enjoying the merit of this artwork. at all, cause s/he might respond more personally and emotionally to the way the human form has been represented in the artwork..
Additionally, the merit of an artwork can also change over time. For example, contemporary viewers might not understand the symbolism that was used in many early Christian religious paintings. Even in a relatively short span of time, the merit of an artwork can change because of new experiences an knowledge that we acquire as viewers. For example, consider the spectacle of the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics. Its strongly nationalistic spirit and the extensive use of inflatable, may give many viewers a new context for looking at works in Chritopher Langton’s Souvenir series. Therefore, through understandability to judge the merit of an artwork is a bit too in vain.（价值会变和总是有价值无关吧）
In a word, for the reasons above, I disagree with the speaker’s assertion.
我觉得题目的主要意思是说：只有让most的人理解了，一件artwork才是有价值的。所以应该主要论述是否是需要most的人的理解，而不是怎么取理解和每个人的理解是否相同。不过，如果论证了只要是artwork都会有价值，应该也可以了。
我的提纲：
1） 反对。
2） merit的含义。有物质的和精神的。有的merit是现实的，有的是长远的。
3） most的理解往往可以创造merit，尤其是物质的；
4） 有些merit是隐晦的，如一些精神上的（科学上的例子）；甚至有些merit恰好在于人们的不了解（复活节岛上的雕像）。
5） 一些merit是需要长时间才体现出来的，而这个时间很可能是人们从不理解到理解的过程，所以我们不能在一开始就否定它的存在。
6） merit是相对的，不同的人会有不同的取舍，不能强求一致。
7） 所以，要以全面的，发展的观点看问题，正视merit的相对性，在art上采取公正宽容的态度。
郁闷，在word里面的颜色效果没有了。算了，我是直接在原文改的，只能麻烦你自己看看了。
对不起了。
页:
[1]