[未归类] 这篇北美范文是不是首段thesis和正文观点是相反的？ [复制链接]

yaochunnan
UID: 3407846

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 55
寄托币: 127
注册时间: 2013-1-17
精华: 0
帖子: 21

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2014-8-26 00:08:30 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

出自老G北美范文ISSUE 77，也就是新G Issue 110. 也被收录在《新GRE写作从3分到6分》ISUUE范文第九篇（p337).我想知道是不是我脑抽了。。。
The speaker's assertion that work in any field can be judged only by experts in that field
amounts to an unfair generalization, in my view. I would concur with the speaker when it
comes to judging the work of social scientists, although I would strongly disagree when it
comes to work in the pure physical sciences, as explained in the following discussion.

With respect to the social sciences, the social world presents a seamless web of not only
anthropogenic but also physical forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a variety of disciplines. Thus experts from various fields must collectively
determine the merit of work in the social sciences. For example, consider the field of cultural anthropology. The merits of researcher's findings and conclusions about an ancient civilization must be scrutinized by biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers.
  Specifically, by analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic scientists can pass judgment on the anthropologist's conjectures about the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death of the population. Geologists are needed to identify the source and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby determining whether the anthropologist extrapolated correctly about the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of writings. And astronomers are sometimes needed to determine with the anthropologist's explanations for the layout of an ancient city or the design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples is convincing-because ancients often looked to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.

  In contrast, the work of researchers in the purely physical sciences can be judged only by
their peers. The reason for this is that scientific theories and observations are either
meritorious or not, depending solely on whether they can be proved or disproved by way of the scientific method. For example, consider the complex equations which physicists rely upon to draw conclusions about the nature of matter, time, and space, or the origins and future of the universe. Only other physicists in these specialties can understand, let alone judge, this type of theoretical work. Similarly, empirical observations in astrophysics and molecular physics require extremely sophisticated equipment and processes, which only experts in these fields have access to and who know how to use reliably.

Those who disagree that only inside experts can judge scientific work might point out that
the expertise of economists and pubic-policy makers is required to determine whether the
work is worthwhile from a more mundane economic or political viewpoint. Detractors might
also point out that ultimately it is our philosophers who are best equipped to judge the ultimate import of ostensibly profound scientific discoveries. Yet these detractors miss the point of what I take to be the speaker's more narrow claim: that the integrity and quality of work---disregarding its socioeconomic utility----can be judged only by experts in the work's field.
  In sum, in the social sciences no area of inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because fields such as anthropology, sociology, and history are so closely intertwined and even dependent on the physical sciences, experts from various fields must collectively determine the integrity and quality of work in these fields. However, in the purely physical sciences the quality and integrity of work can be adequately judged only by inside experts, who are the only ones equipped with sufficient technical knowledge to pass judgment.