- 最后登录
- 2021-2-22
- 在线时间
- 4673 小时
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 声望
- 762
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 907
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 6161
- UID
- 2565872
- 声望
- 762
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 907
|
rayban二代 发表于 2012-7-3 18:46
看了一下,把一些发现的小问题改了,这次上传成附件,劳驾romanus修改!谢谢!
It has been said, "Not everything that is learned is contained in books." Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books. In your opinion, which source is more important? Why?
As is known to all, we gain knowledge both from books and from experience. However, people are having conflicted opinions about which source to acquire knowledge is more important. In my opinion, experience is the more critical source to get knowledge from.
First of all, the knowledge attained from experience is more useful. Although we are stay in a society with a knowledge explosion (This is ambiguous between 'the society is having a knowledge explosion' and 'we are having a knowledge explosion'.), what we need to master is much less (less than what? I don't know that you're comparing against.). The knowledge gained from books is much less useful than that gained from experience. For instance, many people study English for several years but they blue have difficulty in communication with foreigners. However, someone who had lived in England or America for several months would not have difficulty in communication because they acquire the most basic as well as most useful language knowledge from experience. (Good use of example.) In contrast, books deliver much more knowledge, but most of them are useless in the real life. So, we can obtain more useful knowledge form experience than from books. (Good comparison and argument for the 'useful' point, but, since the question is about which is more important, I could well argue that knowledge can be important without being useful in the real life in the 'pragmatic' sense – Latin, for example, is one of the most common cases of practically useless but important knowledge: useless in the sense that nobody speaks the language anymore in real life, but extremely important from a linguistic point of view. With all that said, I mean to say that you could make the argument more complete by adding that being useful is a decisive aspect of importance and therefore knowledge gained from experience is more useful -> more important.)
Secondly, the knowledge learned from experience is much more impressed (I'd suggest 'better impressed/instilled'.) than that from books. The experience which we get knowledge from will stay in our memory for a much longer time, whereas we will easily forget what we learned from books after we graduated from the school. For example, few of us, except the people working on the mathematics, will remember the knowledge of calculus if we leave the school for several years. (Or people in communication/signal technology, or quantitative finance..calculus is actually much more widely used in the industry than many people might have realized.) But almost all of us remember the chemistry experiment in which so many amazing things happened, such as that a piece of magnesium burning in the air, releasing a dazzling white light. (I'd argue that you can't really call a school chemistry experiment like this 'experience'..but I won't press this too hard.) Therefore, the knowledge gained from experience is more impressed.
Finally, the knowledge in books eventually comes from experience. The authors of the book summarized their own experiences, then gained the knowledge and wrote it down. So our learning of knowledge from books is equivalent to learning from experience. Take Charles Darwin for an example. He traveled around the world for five years then summarized his experiences then wrote the famous book, "The Origin of Species". When we read this book, we learn the knowledge from this book. Actually, we gain the knowledge from Darwin's experiences. (I would still argue that a lot of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, does not come from 'experience' if your definition of experience is something that one has to physically partake and observe as a part of his natural life. Rutherford's experiments, for example, by which he discovered the existence of protons and the concept of half-live, contributed greatly to our knowledge of the structure of atoms and in general, radioactivity - would you call such experiments 'experience'? Maybe, maybe not. Think about it.) That is, the most important source we gain knowledge is experience.
In summary, I think the more important source we get knowledge from is experience rather than books. There are three reasons to confirm my opinion. Firstly, we get more useful knowledge from experience. Secondly, we are more impressed on the knowledge acquired from experience. Finally, the knowledge in books actually comes from experience. So we getting knowledge from books is equivalent to getting from experience.(This last sentence has been corrected previously.)
总结:
很成熟的写作,没有短板,例子用得很好。对于论述上可以更加严密的部分,请参见文中的评论 – 这个属于进阶级别,不是说你的文章不好。。
|
|