184"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
The speaker asserts that before one gathers data it is extremely seriously wrong to get theories. I agree that collecting data, classifying and describing observable phenomena enable people to theorize by effectively. However, collected data cannot directly led valid theory and it is not the solo way of concluding theories.
I agree with the speaker insofar that it is a mistake to theorize merely based on intuitions rather than data. Lacking data and sound support, theories turn out to be unconvincing and subjective as they are easily influenced by the researchers’ values or believes. Aristotle theorized that when two things fall from certain height, the heavier one reaches the land earlier which was perfectly accordant with his intuition instead of specific data. Later, this theory was disproved by the data Galileo collected from the famous Pisa Tower experiments. This fact again tell us that the theory based on imagination is pale and null.
And it is also ridiculous to theorize before one has enough data. Thousands of hundreds of surveys and researches are strictly conducted everyday all over the world trying to get enough and representative data. Researchers eliminate the false and retain the true which ensure the theories rightly concluded and verifiable under all conditions. And it is too hasty to theorize when based on limited experience and, undoubtedly, those theories are impossible to be universally applicable. For instance, in the Northern Hemisphere, winter corresponds to the period between December and March. In order to theorize this phenomenon, we must collect data worldwide; otherwise, without the consideration of the Southern Hemisphere, we might get a wrong statement that “winter must last from December to March”.
However, even the collected data has act dominantly when theorize, we sometimes cannot neglect the value of bold assumptions towards the unknown world. Contracted to the inductive reasoning, which conclude the unknown beyond the confines of current evidence, the deductive reasoning is also one of the main scientific approaches. Though the development of modern science is most based upon the approach of induction, deduction is also a powerful tool we can employ. The discovery of theory of gravity is a vivid example. Isaac Newton explained the workings of the universe and the laws of motion and gravitation through mathematics rather than data and experience. And this theory was successfully applied by Adams and LeVerrier to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune. And Einstein theorized relativity not based upon experiment of survey, but through deduction from some self-evident axioms such as the velocity of light never changes and so forth. He followed the principle that in mathematics and logic, all are based on rules of inference and certain assumptions. As long as the process of reasoning is correct, the conclusion must be correct. Therefore, data and facts are no more necessary.
In sum, as the speaker mentions, large reliable data ensures the validity when to theorize as data and facts are always the foundations and activators of getting theories. However, we cannot rashly conclude that to theorize before one has data is a fatal mistake. As Einstein once famously said ‘it is theory that teaches us what observations are and what they mean', we should also acknowledge the positive effect of the audacious assumptions which were drawn without enough data and later proved by deduction.作者: hdsf2003 时间: 2009-7-19 08:49:41
本帖最后由 hdsf2003 于 2009-7-19 08:52 编辑
184"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data." The speaker asserts that before one gathers data it is extremely seriously删除其中一个词 wrong to get theories. I agree (hold the view) that collecting data, classifying and describing observable（observed） phenomena enable people to theorize by
删除effectively. However, collected data cannot directly led (deduce) valid theory and it is not the solo way of concluding theories. I agree with the speaker insofar that it is a mistake to theorize merely based on intuitions rather than data. Lacking data and sound support, theories turn out to be unconvincing and subjective as they are easily influenced by the researchers’ values or believes (beliefs). Aristotle theorized that when two things fall from certain height, the heavier one reaches the land (lands) earlier which was perfectly (completely) accordant with his intuition instead of specific (scientific) data. Later, this theory was disproved by the data Galileo collected from the famous Pisa Tower experiments (去掉s). This fact again tells us that the theory based on imagination is pale and null.
And it is also ridiculous to theorize before one has enough data. Thousands of hundreds of surveys and researches are strictly conducted everyday all over the world trying to get enough and representative data. Researchers eliminate the false and retain the true which ensure the theories rightly concluded and verifiable under all conditions. And it is too hasty to theorize when based on limited experience. and, undoubtedly (Undoubtedly), those theories are impossible to be universally applicable. For instance, in the Northern Hemisphere, winter corresponds to the period between December and March. In order to theorize this phenomenon, we must collect data worldwide; otherwise, without the consideration of the Southern Hemisphere, we might get a wrong statement that “winter must last from December to March”.(这里的例子挺不错，很有说服力) However, even the collected data has act（acted） dominantly when theorize (theorizing), we sometimes cannot neglect the value of bold assumptions towards the unknown world. Contracted to the inductive reasoning, which conclude the unknown beyond the confines of current evidence, the deductive reasoning is also one of the main scientific approaches. Though the development of modern science is most based upon the approach of induction, deduction is also a powerful tool we can employ. The discovery of theory of gravity is a vivid example. Isaac Newton explained the workings of the universe and the laws of motion and gravitation through mathematics rather than data and experience. And this theory was successfully applied by Adams and LeVerrier to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune. And Einstein theorized relativity not based upon experiment of survey, but through deduction from some self-evident axioms such as the velocity of light never changes and so forth. He followed the principle that in mathematics and logic, all are based on rules of inference and certain assumptions. As long as the process of reasoning is correct, the conclusion must be correct. (这个观点非常极端，有常识的人都知道是错的) Therefore, data and facts are no more necessary. 小心给自己圈套 In sum, as the speaker mentions, large （numerous） reliable data ensures the validity when to theorize (of theory) as (because, as 不如because直接) data and facts are always the foundations and activators （这是哪里来的，文中没有丝毫的语言描述这个观点） of getting theories. However, we cannot rashly conclude that to theorize before one has data is a fatal mistake. As Einstein once famously （换个词吧，要么删掉）said ‘it is theory that teaches us what observations are and what they mean', we should also acknowledge the positive effect of the audacious assumptions which were drawn without enough data and later
（but can be是不是更顺畅？） proved by deduction.