寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 【10G10Hawk】小组8月13日任务——Issue184

返回列表

查看: 1494|回复: 11

[i习作temp] 【10G10Hawk】小组8月13日任务——Issue184 [复制链接]

谦行天下
UID：2797557

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 28
寄托币: 1859
注册时间: 2010-4-13
精华: 0
帖子: 13

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-8-12 23:19:03 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由谦行天下于 2010-8-13 21:47 编辑

184"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."

互改顺序（后改前）：

9-13-10-6-1

像蜗牛一样往前爬！

回应
0

使用道具举报

hwslqc
UID：2861597

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 15
寄托币: 207
注册时间: 2010-7-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2010-8-13 16:35:48 |只看该作者

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 678 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2010-8-13 16:28:20

The development and advance of the whole society has been propelled by the appearance of new theories, from arts to science, about which people are all curious. There are some people claims that all theory can only be built after one has data, with which I cannot totally agree. In my opinion, there are three kinds of ways to theorize: conclude from the data one has got; build hypothesis and use data to prove it later; create a new theory without enough evidence. These different methods are used in various fields and I will discuss them as below.

It is common sense that we reveal natural laws or social rules from the collection and scrutiny of data. It is obviously we build most of theories in this way, like classical mechanics or weather report. In this method, people collect all the information they can get and get them together to look for the same or similar rule or factors from all the data. If there are something in common, people dig it out and build theory to explain these common things. Even in art realm, it is one of the common ways, which can be proved by the foreshortened figure, which is created from comparison their observation of the world with their paintings. Lack of data, which is represented by the observation of the world here, artists would never get the chance to create such significant ways to describe the world they live in so real. If we try to build theories beyond the data we have, we will find that there are so many possibilities and it would be so hard to reveal the truth as the lack of data.

However, even data is so important and lack of data will impede the reveal of the true theories, people cannot claim it is a mistake to theorize before one has data. As we know, in many situations, especially in science, there is a word "hypothesis" to describe those theories which have not been proved by convincing evidence. These hypotheses are the theories used in the second way to build- create the theory before we can prove it. It is not a mistake but a useful way to help us to understand the world and walk one step near the truth, even some hypothesis sometimes would be proved to be fallacies finally, like the Ether Theory. We human beings are not omnipotent so we cannot know everything happened in the world, which often lead to the lack of evidence in some abstract theory. For instance, we can never observe a black hole directly as it absorb all the light near it. And the theories about fact that electromagnetic wave had been foreseen by Maxwell before it was revealed is another great example to show that we can build theories first and then to look for evidence to prove it.

Furthermore, some purely theories are so ideal that we can hardly find any data about it. Take philosophy as an example. Philosophy always consider about the problems like where the world come from; where the world are going to; who we are; why we are born? These problems are little pragmatic that we can find no revelant data to them, while they are the most significant problems that we human beings has to confront, otherwise our lives would seems to be meaningless. Thus, we choose the third way to build theories in these realm-build theories without data. As we have little knowledge about these complicated problems, we only use our human nature or imagination to tackle with them.

To sum up, it is one-sided to claim that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data. As we human are not god, we can only get certain data about the world. Thus we have to find other ways rather than only rely on the data we get to explore this world. Even the hypotheses will be proved to be wrong sometime, it bring some advance to the world and lead us one step near the ultimate goal.

TS:论述过于绝对，应该分领域来进行讨论：
1. 大部分领域还是现有data再进行归纳整理，得出理论
2. 但是由于T的限制，很多理论的现象是观测不倒的（black hole. Electromagnetic wave）
3. 甚至有些领域是没有data的，例如philosophy。

8月18，8月18，8月18，8月18，8月18，8月18

使用道具举报

hwslqc
UID：2861597

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 15
寄托币: 207
注册时间: 2010-7-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2010-8-13 16:36:00 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 hwslqc 于 2010-8-14 20:05 编辑

Basically, I agree with the statement that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data. In fact, it is impossible to theorize before one has data. The problem with the statement is that we can not use excuse to avoid generate theory that the data is not enough.

As far as I can concern, theorize is the process that people compare similar things and draw a general law which elaborate as cause and effect relationship, theory, and axioms. Just as Newton observed that apples always fall【换例子，这个牛顿苹果的例子是绝对不合格的。】 into the ground from trees, through many times of perceptions Newton analyses these data and found a general rule called gravitation. When similar things repeat again and again, people begin to realize that there may be a theory behind those things. In the opposite, it is the data that prove a theory is right. Before Darwin publishes his theory of Nature Selection, he went to archipelago to observe the appearance of birds living in the islands to collect data. He compared the shape of beaks, the color of birds, the size of birds and so on, and found that these features very likely to differentiate to adapt different environment. Without this data, Darwin can hardly establish the theory of Nature Selection. Therefore, numerous of data is needed to set up theory.

Someone may argue that when researchers obtain some data, then they can propose a theory and find more data to prove it. As a science student, I can tell you in that case the theory is first called hypothesis. The process of establish a theory is like this: first, based on some phenomena researchers propose their hypothesis; then they devise experiments to prove it. If the experiment turned out right, the hypothesis is right and can be established as theory. If the result turns to be wrong, the hypothesis will be denied. That is why researchers keep on trying. Hypothesis, which has not proved to be right, can not be called theory. Like in physics, the opinion that the cosmos is originated from big bang can not be called theory, but hypothesis. Because substantiated with some evidence opposites it, scientists still dispute with this opinion. Hence, when a hypothesis is proved with data, we can view it is theory.【然后呢？在有data之前theorize是一个mistake么？你是怎么定义theorize的？hypothesis是theorize的一个过程么？这段可能没能表达出你想表达的。】
【PS：theorize在 Webster里的解释：
intransitive verb : to form a theory : SPECULATE
transitive verb
1 : to form a theory about
2 : to propose as a theory
】

The last thing is that some people may use the excuse that data is not enough to refuse to establish theory【没明白你这个TS想表达什么。。】. To postpone the theorizing will likely to postpone it forever. The timely theory publish out can be utilized and benefit society. The danger lies in that because of people's malpractice or prudent, there are no result from investment on the research. Like, the government holds data as an excuse for it low efficient work. So, that is the aspect that this statement omits.【太散了，到最后都没有和issue的题目有任何关系。最好能再写清楚一点。】

In conclusion, it is hardly to theorize before one has data. People propose hypothesis first and use numerous data to prove the truthiness of the hypothesis. If true, the hypothesis becomes data. When people deal with the data, the timing people publish data shouldn't be postpone as the excuse that the data is not enough.

8月18，8月18，8月18，8月18，8月18，8月18

使用道具举报

austen06
UID：2841836

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 9
寄托币: 699
注册时间: 2010-6-27
精华: 0
帖子: 8

地板

发表于 2010-8-13 17:39:09 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 austen06 于 2010-8-13 17:41 编辑

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 532 TIME: 00:57:53 DATE: 2010-8-13 17:35:40
The speaker's claim has some merits; it points out the safest way to establish a theory.
However, the more imporant aspect of the relationship between data and theory does not lie in
whether it is wrong to theorize before one has data but whether the theory can be used to
explain the data observed later. This is true in various fields, like scientific and social
science research. Also, there is no data available in some fields.

Scientific inquiry is a process which needs more attention and focus. Before proposing a
scientific theory, most scientists would study and analyze the huge amounts of information,
facts or data they gathered beforehand. Only through such a tiring process can a theory's
validity be maintained. Take the study of medicine for example. If a doctor would like to
know what factors contribute to cancer, he/she must study a statistically large number of
patients who have cancer and carefully study the dietary habits, genetic traits, and living
environment of each patient. It is a painstaking procedure. The theory about the factors of
cancer are known to the general public which helps to enhance the health of the people.
Without data and the analysis of it, a theory could possibly be refuted easily.

However, emotional factors also play a significant role in the scientific theorization. Human
beings have both emotional and rational traits, which together help us to know the world. One
of the most famous example might be the theory of the benzene's ring structure. Kekule, the
most distinguished 19th century German chemist, had been troubled by the structure for a long
time. One day he woke from a daydream in his laboratory and clearly remembered what was in
his dream: a snake coiled and seized its own tail. Kekule got inspiration from this dream and
proposed the ring structure of benezen. Imagination is quite helpful when we are thinking
despite it could be accused of not being practical.

What is worth noticing is that theory may or may not be originated from data, but it is the
data that give reliability to a theory. And we should put more attention on whether the
theory can explain those data drawn from the real world. For instance, econometrics is a
branch of economics with the sole purpose of this subject to test the economics thoeries that
have been proposed. Once an old theory has been tested with the data collected later, it
becomes more persuasvie than before. Econometrics has greatly improved the study of economics
as the data can improve the reliability of a theory.

In some fields, such as the art and literary critics, it is even impossible to theorize after
one has data simply because there are no data in these fields of study. Critics read those
literature works, and decied whether it is good or bad purely on their emotions. And it is
quite personal, different critics might have strikingly different views on a single work.
Therefore, the theorization of critism do not based on any data but on their personal taste.

To sum up, theorization befoe one has data is acceptable, and we should care more about
whether the established data can explain the data which is a reflection of the real world.

使用道具举报

austen06
UID：2841836

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 9
寄托币: 699
注册时间: 2010-6-27
精华: 0
帖子: 8

5楼

发表于 2010-8-13 17:39:28 |只看该作者

使用道具举报

谦行天下
UID：2797557

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 28
寄托币: 1859
注册时间: 2010-4-13
精华: 0
帖子: 13

6楼

发表于 2010-8-13 20:07:35 |只看该作者

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 518
TIME: 00:48:43
DATE: 2010/8/13 20:03:35

Basically, I agree with the statement that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data. In fact, it is impossible to theorize before one has data. The problem with the statement is that we can not use excuse to avoid generate theory that the data is not enough.

As far as I can concern, theorize is the process that people compare similar things and draw a general law which elaborate as cause and effect relationship, theory, and axioms. Just as Newton observed that apples always fall into the ground from trees, through many times of perceptions Newton analyses these data and found a general rule called gravitation. When similar things repeat again and again, people begin to realize that there may be a theory behind those things. In the opposite, it is the data that prove a theory is right. Before Darwin publishes his theory of Nature Selection, he went to archipelago to observe the appearance of birds living in the islands to collect data. He compared the shape of beaks, the color of birds, the size of birds and so on, and found that these features very likely to differentiate to adapt different environment. Without this data, Darwin can hardly establish the theory of Nature Selection. Therefore, numerous of data is needed to set up theory.

Someone may argue that when researchers obtain some data, then they can propose a theory and find more data to prove it. As a science student, I can tell you in that case the theory is first called hypothesis. The process of establish a theory is like this: first, based on some phenomena researchers propose their hypothesis; then they devise experiments to prove it. If the experiment turned out right, the hypothesis is right and can be established as theory. If the result turns to be wrong, the hypothesis will be denied. That is why researchers keep on trying. Hypothesis, which has not proved to be right, can not be called theory. Like in physics, the opinion that the cosmos is originated from big bang can not be called theory, but hypothesis. Because substantiated with some evidence opposites it, scientists still dispute with this opinion. Hence, when a hypothesis is proved with data, we can view it is theory.

The last thing is that some people may use the excuse that data is not enough to refuse to establish theory. To postpone the theorizing will likely to postpone it forever. The timely theory publish out can be utilized and benefit society. The danger lies in that because of people's malpractice or prudent, there are no result from investment on the research. Like, the government holds data as an excuse for it low efficient work. So, that is the aspect that this statement omits.

In conclusion, it is hardly to theorize before one has data. People propose hypothesis first and use numerous data to prove the truthiness of the hypothesis. If true, the hypothesis becomes data. When people deal with the data, the timing people publish data shouldn't be postpone as the excuse that the data is not enough.

像蜗牛一样往前爬！

使用道具举报

谦行天下
UID：2797557

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 28
寄托币: 1859
注册时间: 2010-4-13
精华: 0
帖子: 13

7楼

发表于 2010-8-13 20:07:50 |只看该作者

本帖最后由谦行天下于 2010-8-14 21:35 编辑

题目：ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
字数：500 用时：00:45:00
I cannot full agree with the topic. The reasonable assumption is one way for the development of science. Some theory is based on the hypothesis of the scientists, even some theorize has nothing about the data.

As we know, data is very important of some theory. There are many laws that were found based on the analysis of a lot of data. In the economy, the law of value is the basic of business. The classical law is the basic reaction of the value. In the biology, Mendel is a good example. He is a geneticist who is the founder of modern genetics. Mendel reaches the hereditary law in 1865. According to the reach of the pea, the regular data makes him to found the hereditary. The discovery of Neptune and Ploto is another example, both of it were calculate by the scientists. The Gall and Le Verrier find the data of the distance is disobey about the Newton's gravitational theory. So they calculate the wrong position and discover the Neptune, Tom baugh find Ploto in the same way. So many examples tell us that data is the best support in some theory.

On the contrary, some logical assumptions are also the leader of theorize. Set the string theory as an example which is a famous theory in physics. The theory was produced by Albert Einstein who is one of greatest physicist in the 20th. According to this assumption, the follow physicist began to reaching to possibility of string theory. If the theory can be proved, it will be another revolution of the modern physics. The big bang is another example; no one clearly knows what happened at the beginning of the universe. All of the assertion and theory is base on the big bang theory and this theory just an assumption of the astronomer. But the theory meaning to the astronomy is irreplaceable. As far as I have analyzed above, we can realize the meaning of the logical assumptions to theorize.

If we stress the important of the data in the theory, it will be stunt in some theorize. As a matter of fact, there are some subject without any data, such as philosophy, literature and art. We hard to support the theory of ph with any data, all of the theory come from the brain of the philosopher. At the same time, we also cannot to stress the data in the literature and art. Both of them is the way that people grasp the real world, and the works not only have the reaction and cognition of the artist but also have the value, ideal, emotion and some kinds of subjectivity factors. It is a mental product.

In sum up, data is very important to theorize but it is not the necessary one. Of course, the accurate data is the powerful support of the theory and make the theory more cogent. The best way of developing the society is the combination of the logical assumption and accurate data.

像蜗牛一样往前爬！

使用道具举报

mjg870923 UID：2717620 mjg870923 当前离线最后登录 2012-10-19 在线时间 1025 小时寄托币 1196 声望 8 注册时间 2009-10-26 阅读权限 0 帖子 12 精华 0 积分 1187 UID 2717620 禁止访问声望 8 寄托币 1196 注册时间 2009-10-26 精华 0 帖子 12 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	8楼发表于 2010-8-13 20:14:54 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

	使用道具举报

mjg870923 UID：2717620 mjg870923 当前离线最后登录 2012-10-19 在线时间 1025 小时寄托币 1196 声望 8 注册时间 2009-10-26 阅读权限 0 帖子 12 精华 0 积分 1187 UID 2717620 禁止访问声望 8 寄托币 1196 注册时间 2009-10-26 精华 0 帖子 12 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	9楼发表于 2010-8-13 20:15:06 \|只看该作者 to psMaggie 提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

	使用道具举报

PsMaggie
UID：2861847

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 6
寄托币: 320
注册时间: 2010-7-24
精华: 0
帖子: 1

10楼

发表于 2010-8-13 21:08:52 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 PsMaggie 于 2010-8-14 11:03 编辑

写得很不满意。。。
TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 588 TIME: 00:43:42 DATE: 2010/8/13 17:27:27

It is normal that assumption comes first and then scientists collect data to prove whether it could be made a theory. Indeed, some need data. Like estimating the demand for housing units in some area, estimating the absorption rate for some project. These feasibility studies without adequate data won't come to a satisfying conclusion. However, if theory is carried out only after the data has been given to, the development of our society cannot be maintained in a fast speed.

People are informed by their daily experiences that without enough evidences it is dangerous to define something. It is indeed careful but many people, even scientists miss plenty of opportunities to have a finding. This kind of notion: it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data, in a great extent limits people's imaginaries. There may probably be an exact theory without data on occasion of the time for collecting data isn't within one's life time, but some could predict. If people get such hesitating consideration, a pile of great theories, technologies would be missed. Some doesn't seriously need data to come across a theory. Like the hypothesis in scientific study. Some adventures guess may help accomplish momentous achievement. There is a famous instance, Einstein took the theory of relativity without a serious of convincing data. This theory established under no fact that could concretely show its correctness. At first almost few people had believe in him. But as we all know, with religious mathematical proof, it shows us a beautiful picture on microcosm long after Einstein came up with relativity.

Also, there are many other fields that could be brought up theories without enough data. For instance, considering the art world, music theory does exist, but no any data or analysis has been used to establish this theory. It's the same as the other art subject, inspiration is more valuable than survey or analysis. Even a painter could totally establish his own theory of painting without any data cause this job is entirely a subjective job, every function is possible. Therefore, under this circumstance it is inaccurate to assert that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.

Even if theory made before one has data would definitely turn out to ba a bad consequence, the author neglects that mistake isn't equal to disaster and isn't equal to fail for good. Of course sometimes scientists make errors before they pick up enough data, maybe for their incomplete collection and maybe for the changing of the data which the scientists don't know. But it takes place regular that scientists got a wrong consequence in researches or found out their incorrect predicts about some phenomena. While these happen, it doesn't mean that build up a kind of theory which turns out to be wrong is a grave mistake. It must be noticed that the mistakes exist, the science being corrected and then makes progress and develops.

What's more, put too much emphasis on collecting data may also have a counteraction. Such as Stephen William Hawking, he has made a mistake about taking too much emphasis on data.

In sum, it is too hasty to allege that grave mistake would happen if to theorize before one has data. Science sometimes need something adventurous and those unsolved problems would be solved under such circumstance as happened a host of times. And also mistakes are one of the factors to improve the research towards success, it would be better for people to regard mistakes in a correct way.

使用道具举报

sharonye
UID：2862009

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 34
寄托币: 412
注册时间: 2010-7-24
精华: 0
帖子: 15

11楼

发表于 2010-8-13 21:55:45 |只看该作者

题目：ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
字数：553
用时：01:00:00
日期：2010-8-13
下午 09:29:18

As the old saying goes: " seeing is believing." Mostly, I never believe what I hear, I only believe what I see. Also, in the scientific area, data is very important to justify the result, it can show us the fact to make our mind see it, without a data, it would be hard to make a sound theory, for everything is only based on guesswork. Consequently, I basically agree with the title statement, even it still has some flaws.
A theory lacking data may be totally wrong and it will mislead the herd. The scientist is likely to be emerged in his or her own imagination, but not know clear about the fact hiding in the back. Thus, the theory might seem reasonable on the surface, after all, when a scientist come up with an idea, there must be some phenomenon or common sense in related with it, and the theory can also explain some surprising fact. For example, when Aristotle tells people that when two things come down to the earth from the same height, the lighter must take a longer time. There is no evidence for the theory, it is just his thought, without any data, but not the reality. Then people hold the opinion for much a long time until Calilie proved it to be wrong by an experiment.
Accordingly, before a date is drawn, the imagination can just be called

imagination, not real theory.
Data is used to make a theory more convincing. As is known to all, when Albert Einstein come up with the relativity theory, no one believed him. So the only way to make it acceptable is data. Thanks to an ordinary astronomer who helped Einstein collect some important data and evidence, making the theory become the most significant invention in the 20th century, or we may lose the opportunity to understand so many mysteries in universe, also lose the great scientist.
However, because the limit of technology and scientific development, there are also some theory can not simply explained by data, even we are not able to find the data in need in today's world. But it is too early to judge the result must be wrong, the theory is logical enough to ensure its potential to be justified in the future. Steven Hawking can serve a very good example. Although the universe is so enormous that it is hard, even impossible
to create to model of it to draw some useful data, he still insists on his theory, and what is more, he introduced the theory to all over the world, including common people. Many people agree with him, not because he is authority, but for his logical detective. We cannot deny the value of
the theory, it is most likely to be
proved in a time not so far from now.
In is a general rule that Nobel Price will not be given to someone whose theory
is not proved, only by data can we finally rule out the doubt of a so called theory. But it also need us to pay attention to some imaginary theory, using a developing mind to view it, and make the most of your knowledge to clarify whether it is right or wrong.

使用道具举报

PsMaggie
UID：2861847

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 6
寄托币: 320
注册时间: 2010-7-24
精华: 0
帖子: 1

12楼

发表于 2010-8-14 10:55:49 |只看该作者

写得很不满意。。。
TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 588 TIME: 00:43:42 DATE: 2010/8/13 17:27:27

It is normal that assumption comes first and then scientists collect data to prove whether it could be made a theory. Indeed, some need data. Like estimating the demand for housing units in some area, estimating the absorption rate for some project. These feasibility studies without adequate data won't come to a satisfying conclusion. However, if theory is carried out only after the data has been given to, the development of our society cannot be maintained in a fast speed.

People are informed by their daily experiences that without enough evidences it is dangerous to define something. It is indeed careful but many people, even scientists miss plenty of opportunities to have a finding. This kind of notion: it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data, in a great extent limits people's imaginaries. There may probably be an exact theory without data on occasion of the time for collecting data isn't within one's life time, but some could predict. If people get such hesitating consideration, a pile of great theories, technologies would be missed. Some doesn't seriously need data to come across a theory. Like the hypothesis in scientific study. Some adventures guess may help accomplish momentous achievement. There is a famous instance, Einstein took the theory of relativity without a serious of convincing data. This theory established under no fact that could concretely show its correctness. At first almost few people had believe in him. But as we all know, with religious mathematical proof, it shows us a beautiful picture on microcosm long after Einstein came up with relativity.

Also, there are many other fields that could be brought up theories without enough data. For instance, considering the art world, music theory does exist, but no any data or analysis has been used to establish this theory. It's the same as the other art subject, inspiration is more valuable than survey or analysis. Even a painter could totally establish his own theory of painting without any data cause this job is entirely a subjective job, every function is possible. Therefore, under this circumstance it is inaccurate to assert that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.

Even if theory made before one has data would definitely turn out to ba a bad consequence, the author neglects that mistake isn't equal to disaster and isn't equal to fail for good. Of course sometimes scientists make errors before they pick up enough data, maybe for their incomplete collection and maybe for the changing of the data which the scientists don't know. But it takes place regular that scientists got a wrong consequence in researches or found out their incorrect predicts about some phenomena. While these happen, it doesn't mean that build up a kind of theory which turns out to be wrong is a grave mistake. It must be noticed that the mistakes exist, the science being corrected and then makes progress and develops.

What's more, put too much emphasis on collecting data may also have a counteraction. Such as Stephen William Hawking, he has made a mistake about taking too much emphasis on data.

In sum, it is too hasty to allege that grave mistake would happen if to theorize before one has data. Science sometimes need something adventurous and those unsolved problems would be solved under such circumstance as happened a host of times. And also mistakes are one of the factors to improve the research towards success, it would be better for people to regard mistakes in a correct way.

使用道具举报