issue 例文20篇

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 10
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
政府必须保证主要城市用于发展的财政支持，因为国家的文化传统发源于并保留在这些主要城市。

   The speaker’s claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survivial of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed for our large cities and culrural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3)cultural traditons are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of government. admittedly, certain objectives, such as prublic health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisiona as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their hometowns and states or of lobbuyists with the most money and unfluence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture—by which I chiefly mean the fine arts—has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the twentieth century, the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and Getty. And tomorrow, cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls—including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so governmetn need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primary breeding gound and sactuaries for a nation’s cultural traditions. Today, a nation’s distinct cultural traditions—its folk art, crafts, traditonal songs, customs, and ceremonies—burgeon instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for “high art”; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world’s preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do anymore with one nation’s distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicutural stew pots; accordingly, by assisting large cities, a government is actually helping to create a global culture as well to subsidize the tradions of other nations’ cultures.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation’s cultural traditions; nor is governmetn assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.

Lyon_TonyUID: 178961

请标明出处

sunjjchinaUID: 208204

spiritzy111UID: 200646

What should be the focus of media?
The speaker asserts that rather than merely highlighting certain sensational events, the media should provide complete coverage of more important events. While the speaker’s assertion has merit from a normative standpoint, in the final analysis, I find this assertion indefensible.
Upon first impression, the speaker’s claim seems quite compelling, for two reasons. First, without the benefit of a complete, unfiltered, and balanced account of current events, it is impossible to develop an informed and intelligent opinion about important social and political issues and, in turn, to contribute meaningfully to our democratic society, which relies on broad participation in an ongoing debate about such issues to steer a proper course. The end result of our being a largely uninformed people is that we relegate the most important decisions to a handful of legislators, jurists, and executives who may or may not know what is best for us.
Second, by focusing on the “sensatinal”—by which I take the speaker to mean comparatively shocking, entertaining, and titillating events that easily catch one’s attention—the media appeal to our emotions and baser instincts, rather than to our intellect and reason. Any observant person could list many examples aptly illustrating the trend in this direction—from trashy talk shows and local news broadcasts to The National Enquirer and People Magazine. This trend clearly serves to undermine a society’s collective sensibilities and renders a society’s members more vulnerable to demagoguery; thus, we should all abhor and resist the trend.
However, for several reasons, I find the media’s current trend toward highlights and the sensational to be justifiable. First, the world is becoming an increasingly eventful place; thus, with each passing year, it becomes a more onerous task for the media to attempt full news coverage. Second, we are becoming an increasingly busy society. The average person spends 50 percent more time at work now than a generation ago. Since we have far less time today for news, highlights must often suffice. Third, the media does in fact provide full coverage of important events; anyone can find such coverage beyond their newspaper’s front page, on daily PBS news programs, and on the Internet. I would wholeheartedly agree with the speaker if the sensatinal highlights were all the media were willing or permitted to provide; this scenario would be tantamount to thought control on a mass scale and would serve to undermine our free society. However, I am aware of no evidence of any trend in this direction. To the contrary, in my observation, the media are informing us more fully than ever before; we just need to seek out that information.
On balance, then, the speaker’s claim is not defensible. In the final analysis, the media serves its proper function by merely providing what we in a free society demand. Thus, any argument about how the media should or should not bahave—regardless of its merits from a normative standpoint—begs the question.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Pragmatism vs. idealism
I agree with the speaker insofar as a practical, pragmatic approach toward our endeavors can help us survive in the short term. However, idealism is just as crucial—if not more so—for long-term success in any endeavor, whether it be in academics, business, or political and social reform.
When it comes to academics, students who we would consider pragmatic tend not to pursue an educatuion for its own sake. Instead, they tend to cut whatever corners are needed to optimize their grade average and survive the current academic term. But is this approach the only way to succeed academically? Certainly not. Students who earnestly pursue intellectual paths that truly interest them are more likely to come away with a meaningful and lasting education. In fact, a sense of mission about one’s area of fascination is strong motivation to participate actively in class and to study earnestly, both of which contribute to better grades in that area. Thus, although the idealist-student might sacrifice a high overall grade average, the depth of knowledge, academic discipline, and sense of purpose the student gains will serve that student well later in life.
In considering the business world, it might be more tempting to agree with the speaker; after all, isn’t business fundamentally about pragmatism—that is, “getting the jog done” and paying attention to the “bottom line”? Emphatically, no. admittedly, the everyday machinations of business are very much about meeting mundane short-term goals: deadlines for production, sales quotas, profit margins, and so forth. Yet underpinning these activities is the vision of the company’s chief executive—a vision that might extend far beyond mere profit maximization to the ways in which the firm can make a lasting and meaningful contribution to the community, to the broader economy, and to the society as a whole. Without a dream or vision—that is, without strong idealist leadership—a firm can easily be cast about in the sea of commerce without clear direction, threatening not only the firm’s bottom line but also its very survival.
Finally, when it comes to the political area, again at first blush, it might appear that pragmatism is the best, if not the only, way to succeed. Most politicians seem driven by their interest in being elected and reelected—that is, in surviving—rather than by any sense of mission or even obligation to their constituency or country. Diplomatic and legal maneuverings and negotiations often appear intended to meet the practical needs of the parties involved—minimizing costs, preserving options, and so forth. But, it is idealists—not pragmatists—who sway the masses, incite revolutions, and make political ideology reality. Consider idealists such as America’s founders, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Had these idealists concerned themselves with short-term survival and immediate needs rather than with their notions of an ideal society, the United States and India might still be British colonies, and African Americans might still be relegated to the backs of buses.
In short, the statement fails to recognize that idealism—keeping one’s eye on an ultimate prize—is the surest path to long-term success in any endeavor. Meeting one’s immediate needs, while arguably necessary for short-term survival, accomplishes little without a sense of mission, a vision, or a dream for the long term.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Are war and crime products of the human condition?
Are products of human nature such as war and crime actually products of the human condition—specifically, lack of resourses and territory? The speaker claims so. I stongly disagree, however. Whether we look at science and history or simply look around us in our daily lives, we see ample evidence that human aggression is the product of our nature as humans—and not of our circumstances.
First of all, the claim runs contrary to my personal observation about individual behavior—especially when it comes to males. One need look no further than the local school ground or kndergarten playroom ro see the roots of crime and war. Every school yard has its bully who delights in tormenting meeker schoolmates; and in every knidergarten classroom, there is at least one muscreant whose habit is to snatch away the favorite toys of classmates—purely for the enjoyment of having seized property from another. And these behaviors are clearly not for want of resources or territory. Thus, the only reasonable explanation is that they are products of human nature—not of the human condition.
Secondly, the claim flies in the face of what scientists have learned about genetically determined human traits. Many human traits—not just physical ones but psychological ones as well—are predetermines at birth. And to a great extent, we have inherited our genetic predisposition from our nonhuman ancestors. One might argue that loweranimal species engage in warlike behavior for the main reason that they must do so to protect their territory or their clan or for food—not because of their nature. Yet, this point begs the question; for we humans have been genetically programmed, through the evolutionary process, to behave in similar ways. In other words, doing so is simply our nature.
Thirdly, the claim makes little sense in the context of human history. Prior to the last few centuries, the inhabitable regions of our planet provided ample territory and resources—such as food and cultivable land—to accommodate every human inhabitant. Yet our distant ancestors engaged in war and crime anyway. What else explains this , except that it is part of our inherent nature to engage in aggressive behavior toward other humans? Moreover, if we consider the various experiments with Marx’s Communism, it becomes clear that the pure Marxist State in which all territory and resources are shared according to the needs of each individual does not work in practice. Every attempt, whether on the macro or micro level, has failed at the hands of a few demagogues or despets, who aggress and oppress like playground bullies.
In sum, the author of this statement misunderstands the roots of such phenomena as war and crime. The statement runs contrary to my personal observations of human behavior, to the scientific notions of genetic predisposition and evolution of species, and to the overwhelming lack of evidence that providing ample resources to people solves these problems.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 234
"Most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, although they would probably deny such a preference."
尽管人们不承认，比起完全的自由，人们更想有一些束缚，
Do people prefer constraints on absolute freedom of choice, regardless of what they might claim? I believe so, because in order for any democratic society to thrive, it must strike a balance between freedom and order.
History informs us that attempts to quell basic individual freedoms—of expression, of opinion and belief, and to come and go as we please—invariably fail. People ultimately rise up against unreasonable constraints on freedom of choice. The desire for freedom seems to spring from our fundamental nature as human beings. But does this mean that people would prefer absolute freedom of choice to any constraints whatsoever? No. Reasonable constraints on freedom are needed to protect freedom—and to prevent a society from devolving into a anarchy where life is short and brutish.
To appreciate our preference for constraints our own freedom of choice, one need look no further than the neighboehood playground. Even without any adult supervision, a group of youngsters at play invariably establish mutually agreed-upon rules for conduct—whether or not a sport or game is involved. Children learn at an early age that without any rules for behavior, the playground bully usually prevails. And short of beating up on of others. Thus out preference for constraining our freedom of choice stems from our desire to protect and preserve that freedom.
Our preference for constraining our own freedom of choice continues into our adult lives. We freely enter into exlusive pair-bonding relationships; during our teens, we agree to “go steady,” then as adults, we voluntarily enter into marriage contracts. Most of us eagerly enter into exclusive employment relationships—prefering the security of steady income to the “freedom” of not knowing where out next paycheck will come from. Even people who prefer self-employment to job security quickly learn that the only way to preserve their “autonomy” is to constrain themselves in terms of their agreements with clients and customers and especially in terms of how they use their time. Admittedly, out self-inflicted job constraints are born largely of economic necessity. Yet even the wealthiest individuals usually choose to constrain their freedom by devoting most of their time and attention to a few pet projects.
Our preference for constraining our own freedom of choice is evident on a societal level as well. Just as children at a playground recognize the need for self-imposed reles and regulations, as a society, we recongnize the same need. After all, in a democratic society, out system of laws is an invention of the people. For example, we insist on being bound by rules for oerating motor vehivles, for bying and selling both real and personal property, and for making public statements about other people. Without these rules, we would live in continual fear for our physical safety, the security of out property, and out personal reputation and dignity.
In sum, I agree with the fundamental assertion that people prefer reasonable constraints on their freedom of choice. In fact, in a democratic society, we insist on imposing these constraints on ourselves in order to preserve that freedom.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 231
" 'Moderation in all things' is ill-considered advice. Rather, one should say, 'Moderation in most things,' since many areas of human concern require or at least profit from intense focus."
对所有事情的克制是不周详的。尽管有人会说：“大多数事情都要适度 。”但由于人们关心的很多领域需要或者至少得益于高密度的关注。

Should we strive for moderation in all things, as the adage suggests? I tend to agree with the speaker that worthwhile endeavors sometines require, or at least call for, intense focus at the expense of moderation.
The virtues of moderation are undeniable. Moderation in all things affords us the time and energy to sample more of what life out of balance. As a society, we are slowly coming to realize what many astute psychologists and medical practitiners have known all along: we are at our best as humans only when we strike a proper balance betweenthe mind, body, and spirit. The call for a balanced life is essentially a call for moderation in all things.
For instance, while moderate exercise improves our health and sense of well-being, overexercise and intense exercise can cause injury or psychological burnout, either of which defeat our purpose by requiring us to discontinue exercise altogether. Lack of moderation in diet can cause obesity at one extreme or anorexia at the other, either of which endangers one’s health—and even life. And when it comes to potentially addicitive substances—alcohol, tobacco, and the like—the deleterious effects of overconsumption are clear enough.
The virtues of moderation apply to work as well. Stress associated with a high-pressure job increases one’s vulnerability to heart disease and other physical disorders. And overwork can result in psychological burnout thereby jeopardizing one’s job and career. Overwork can even kill, as demonstrated by the alarmingly high death rate among young Japanese men, many of whom work 100 or more hours each week.
Having acknowledged the wisdom of the old adage, I nevertheless agree that under some circumstances, and for some people, abandoning moderation might be well justified. Consider how many of the world’s great artistic creations —in the visual arts, focused efforts on the part of their creators. Creative work necessarily involves a large measure of intense focus—a single-minded, obsessive pursuit of aestetic perfection.
Or, consider athletic perfomance. Admittedly, intensity can be counterproductive when it results in burnout or injury. Yet who could disagree that a great athletic perfomance itself? In short, when it comes to athletics, moderation breeds mediocrity, while intensity breeds excellence and victory. Finally, consider the increasing competitive world of business. An intense, focused company-wide effort is sometimes needed to ensure a company’s competitiveness and even survival. This is particularly true in today’s technology-driven industries where keeping up with the frantic pace of change is essential for almost any high-tech firm’s survival.
In sum, the old adage amounts to sound advice for most people under most circumstances. Nevertheless, when it comes to creative accomplishment and to competitive success in areas such as athletics and business, I agree with the speaker that abandoning or suspending moderation is often appropriate, and sometimes necessary, in the interest of achieving worthwhile goals.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 212
212 "If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable"
212． 只要一个目标是值得去实现的，那么任何努力都是有理由的。
    The speaker asserts that if a goal is worthy, then any means of attaining that goal is justifiable. In my view, this extreme position misses the point entirely. Whether certain means are justifiable in reaching a goal must be determined on a case-by-basis, by weighing the benefits of attaining the goal against the costs, or harm, that might accrue along the way. This applies equally to individual goals and to societal goals.
Consider the goal of completing a marathon running race. If I need to reduce my working hours to train for the race, thereby jeopardizing my job, of if I run a high risk of incurring a permanent injury by training enough to prepare adequately for the event, then perhaps my goal is not worth attaining. Yet if I am a physically challenged person with the goal of completing a highly publicized marathon, risking financial hardship or long-term injury might be worthwhile, not only for my own personal satisfaction but also for the inspiration that attaining the goal would provide many others.
Or consider the goal of providing basic food and shelter for an innocent child. Anyone would agree that this goal is highly worthy—considered apart from the means used to achieve it. But what if whose means involve stealing from others? Or what if they involve employing the child in a sweatshop at the expense of educating the child? Clearly, determining the worthiness of such goals requires that we confront moral dilemmas, which we each solve individually—based on our own conscience, value system, and notions of fairness and equity.
On a sociental level, we determine the worthiness of our goals in much the same way—by weighing competing interests. For instance, any thoughtful persom would agree that reducing air and water pollution is a worthy societal goal; clean air and water reduce the burden on our health-care resources and improve the quality of life for everyone in society. Yet to attain this goal, would we be justified in forcing entire industries out of business, thereby running the risk of economic paralysis and widespread unemployment? Or consider America’s intervention in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did America’s dual interest in a continuing flow of oil to the West and in deterring a potential threat against the security of the world justify our committing resources that could have been used instead for domestic social-welfare programs—or a myriad of other productive purposes? Both issues underscore the fact that the worthiness of a cosietal goal cannot be considered apart from the means and asverse consequences of a societal foal cannot be considered apart from the means and adverse consequences of attaining that goal.
In sum, the speaker begs the question. The worthiness of any goal, whether it be personal or societal, can be determined only by weighing the benefits of achieving the goal against its costs—to us as well as others.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 207
"Rituals and ceremonies help define a culture. Without them, societies or groups of people have a diminished sense of who they are."（4/1）
典礼和仪式有助于给一种文化下定义。没有典礼和仪式，人们就无法很好地了解 自己。
The speaker asserts that rituals and ceremonies are needed to any culture or group of people to retain a strong sense of identity. I agree that one purpose of ritual and ceremony is to preserve cultural identity, at least  in modern times. However, this is not their sole purpose; nor are ritual and ceremony the only means of preserving cultural identity.
I agree with the speaker insofar as one purpose of ritual and ceremony in today’s world is to preserve cultural identity. Native American tribes, for example, cling tenaciously to their traditonal ceremonies and rituals, which typically tell a story about tr4ibal heritage. The reason for maintaining these rituals and customs lies largely in the tribes’ 500-year struggle against assimilation, even extinction, at the hands of European intruders. An outward display of traditional customs and distinct heritage is needed to put the world on notice that each tribe is a distinct and autonomous people, with its own heritage, values, and ideas. Otherwise, the tribe risks total assimilation and loss of identity.
The lack of meaningful ritual and ceremony in homogenous mainstream American underscores this point. Other than a few gratuitous ceremonies such as weddings and funerals, we maintain no common rituals to set us apart from other cultures. The reson for this is that, as a whole, American has little cultural identity of its own anymore. Instead, it has become a patchwork quilt of many subcultures, such as Native Americans, Hasidic Jews, Amish, and urban African Americans—each of which resorts to some out ward demonstration of its distictiveness in order to establish and maintain a unique cultural identity.
Nevertheless, preserving cultural identity cannot be the only purpose of ritual and ceremony. Otherwise, how would one explain why isolated cultures that don’t need to distinguish themselves to preserve their identity nevertheless engage in their own distinct rituals and ceremonies? In fact, the initial purpose of ritual and ceremony is rooted not in cultural identity but rather superstition and spiritual belief. The original purpose of a ritual might have been to frighten away evil spirits, to bring about weather conditions favorable to bountiful harvests, or to entreat the gods for a successful hunt or for victory in battle. Even today, some primitive cultures engage in ritual s primarily for such reasons.
Nor are ritual and ceremony the only means of preserving cultural identity. For example, the Amish culture demonstrates its distictiveness through dress and lifestyle. Hasidic Jews set themselves apart by their dress, vocational choices, and dietary habits. And African Americans distinguish themselves today by their manner of speech and gesture. Of course, these subcultures have their own distinct ways of celebrating events such as weddings, coming of age, and so forth. Yet ritual and ceremony are not the primary means by which these subcultures maintain their identity.
In sum, to prevent total cultural assimilation into our modern-day homogenous soup, a subculture with a unique and proud heritge must maintain as outward display of that heritage—by way of ritual and ceremony. Nevertheless, ritual and ceremony serve a spiritual functin as wwell—one that has little to do with preventing cultural assimilation. Moreover, rituals and ceremonies are not the only means of preserving cultural identity.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 203
"The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines."
理解一个社会特征的最好的方法就是研究那个社会所认为的伟大人物。
    The speaker claims that the character of a society’s heroes and heroines (‘heroes’ hereafter) reflects the character of that society. I tend to disagree. In my observation, a society chooses as its heroes not people who mirror the society but rather people whose character society’s members wish they could emulate but cannot –for want of character. Nevertheless, I concede that one particular type of hero—the sociopolitical hero—by definition mirrors the character of the society whose causes the hero champions.
First, consider the sports hero, whom in my observation society chooses not merely by virtue of athletic prowess. We consider some accomplished athletes heroes because they have overcome significant obstacles to achieve their goals. For example, Lance Armstrong was not the first Tour de France cycling champion from the U.S.; yet he was the first to overcome a life-threatening illness to win the race. We consider other accomplished athletes heroes because they give back to the society that lionize them. As Mohammed Ali fought not just for boxing titles but also for racial equality, so baseball hero Mark McGuire fights now for disadvantaged children, while basketball hero Magic Johnson fights for AIDS research and awareness. Yet, do the character traits and resulting charitable efforts of sports heroes reflect similar traits and efforts among our society at large? No, they simply reveal that we admire these traits and efforts in other people and wish we could emulate them—but for our own personal failings.
Next consider the military hero, who gains heroic stature by way of courage in battle or by otherwise facing certain defeat and emerging victorious. Consider former presidential hopeful John McCain, whom even his political opponents laud as a war hero for having not only endured years of torture as a prisoner of war but also for continuing to serve his country afterward. Do his patriotism and mettle reveal our society’s true character? Certainly not. They reveal only that we admire his courage, fortitude, and strength.
On the other hand, consider a third type of hero: the champion of social causes who inspires and incites society to meaningful political and social change. Such luminaries as India’s Mahatma Gandhi, America’s Martin Lurther King, South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, and Poland’s Lech Lawesa come immediately to mind. This unique brand of hero does reflect, and indeed must reflect, the character of the hero’s society. After all, it is the function of the social champion to call attention to the character of society, which having viewed its reflection in the hero is incited to act bravely—in accordance with its collective character.
In sum, I agree with the speaker’s claim only with respect to champions of society’s social cuases. Otherwise, what society deems heroic reflects instead a basic and universal human need for paragons—to whom we can refer as metaphors for the sorts of virtues that for lack of character, we cannot ourselves reflect.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 184
"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
在没有数据之前就下结论是大忌。
Is it a “grave mistake” to theorize without data, as the speaker contends? I agree insofar as to theorize before collecting sufficient data is to risking tainting the process of collecting and interpreting further data. However, in a sense, the speaker begs the question by overlooking the fact that every theory requires some data to begin with. Moreover, the claim unfairly ignores equally grave consequences of waiting to theorize until we obtain too much data.
In one inportant respect, I agree with the speaker’s contention. A theory conjured up without the benefit of data amounts to little more than the theorist’s hopes and desires—what he or she wants to be true and not be true. Accordingly, this theorist will tend to seek out evidence that supports the theory and overlook or avoid evidence that refutes it. One telling historical example involves theories about the center of the universe. Understandably, we ego-driven humans would prefer that the universe revolve around us. Early theories presumed so for this reason, and subsequent observations that ran contrary to this ego-driven theory were ignored, while the observers were scorned and even vilified.
By theorizing before collecting data, the theorist also runs the risk of interpreting that data in a manner that makes it appear to lend more credence to the theory than it actually does. Consider the theory that Earth is flat. Any person with a clear view of the horizon must agree in all honesty that the evidence does not support the theory. Yet prior to Newtonian physics, the notion of a spherical Earth was so unsettling to people that they interpreted the arc-shaped horizen as evidence of a convex, yet nevertheless “flattish”, Earth.
Despite the merits of the speaker’s claim, I find it problematic in two crucial respects. First, common sense informs me that it is impossible to theorize in the first place without at least some data. How can theorizing without data be dangerous, as the speaker contends, if it is not even possible? While a theory based purely on fantasy might ultimately be born out by empirical observation, it is equally possible that it won’t. Thus, without prior data, a theory is not worth our time or attention.
Secondly, the speaker’s claim overlooks the inverse problem: the danger of continuing to acquire data without venturing a theory based on that data. To postpone theorizing until all the data is in might be to postpone it forever. The danger lies in the reasons we theorize and test our theories: to solve society’s problems and to make the world a better place to live. Unless we act timely based on our data, we render ourselves impotent. For example, governments tend to respond to urgent social problems by establishing agencies to collect data and think tanks to theorize about causes and solutions. These agencies and think tanks serve no purpose unless they admit that they will never have all the data and that no theory is foolproof and unless timely action is taken based on the best theory currently available –before the problem overwhelms us.
To sum up, I agree with the speaker insofar as a theory based on no data is not a theory but mere whimsy and fancy and insofar as by theorizing first, we tend to distort the extent to which data collected thereafter supports our own theory, neverthless, we put ourselves in equal peril by mistaking data for knowledge and progress, which require us not only to theorize but also to act upon our theories with some useful end in mind.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 176
"The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset . Therein lies the value of each."
科学的目的是打消疑虑，艺术的目的是颠覆。只有这样，它们才有价值。

The speaker maintains that the function of art is to “upset” while the function of science is to “reassure” and that it is in these function that the value of each lies. In my view, the speaker unfairly generalizes about the function and value of art while completely missing the point about the function and value of science.
Consider first the intent and effect of art. In many cases, artists set about to reassure, not to upset. Consider Fra Angelico and others monks and nuns of the late medieval period, who sought primarily through their representations of the Madonna and Child to reassure and be reassured about the messages of Christian redemption and salvation. Or consider the paintings of impressionist and realist painters of the late nineteenth century. Despite the sharp contrast in the techniques employed by these two schools, in both genres, we find soothing, genteel, and pastoral themes and images—certainly nothing to upset the viewer.
In other cases, artists set about to upset. For example, the painters and sculptors of the Renaissance period, like the artists who preceded them, approached their art as a form of worship. Yet Renaissance art focuses on other Christian images and themes—especially those involving the crucifixion and apocalyptic notions of judgement and damnation—that are clearly “upsetting” and disconcerting and clearly not reassuring. Or consider the works of two important twentieth-century artists; few would argue that the surrealistic images by Salvador Dali or the jarring, splashy murals by abstract painter Jackson Pollock serve to “upset,” or at the very least disquiet, the viewer on a visceral level.
When it comes to the function and value of science, in my view, the speaker’s assertion is simply wrong. The final objective of science, in my view, is to discover truths about our world, our universe, and ourselves. Sometimes, these discoveries serve to reassure, and other times, they serve to upset. For example, many would consider reassuring the various laws and principles of physics that provide unifying explanations for what we observe in the physical world. These principles provide a reassuring sense of order, even simplicity, to an otherwise mysterious and perplexing world.
On the other hand, many scentific discoveries have clearly “upset” conventional notions about the physical world and the universe. The notions of a sun-centered universe, that humans evolved from lower primate forms, and that time is relative to space and motion are all disquieting notions to anyone whose belief system depends on contrary assumptions. And more recently, researchers have discovered that many behavioral traits are functions of individual neurological brain structure, determined at birth. This notion has “upset” many professionals in fields such as behavioral psychology, criminology, mental health, and law, whose work is predicated on the notion that undesirable human behavior can be changed—through various of reform and behavior modification.
In sum, the speaker overgeneralizes when it comes to the function and value of art and science—both of which serve in some cases to reassure and in other cases to upset. In any event, the speaker misstates the true function and value of science, which is to discover truths, whether reassuring or upsetting.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 165
"In any given field, the leading voices come from people who are motivated not by conviction but by the desire to present opinions and ideas that differ from those held by the majority."
在任何领域，领导作用总是来自于这些人，他们并不为传统的观念所动，而是极力渴望表达那些和主流思想不同的观点和想法。

I agree with the statement insofar as our leading voices tend to come from people whose ideas depart from the status quo. However, I do not agree that what motivates these iconoclasts is a mere desire to be different; in my view, they are driven primarily by their personal convictions. Supporting examples abound in all areas of human endeavor—including politics, the arts, and the physical sciences.
When it comes to political power, I would admit that a deep-seated psychological need to be noticed or to be different sometimes lies at the heart of a person’s drive to political power and fame. For instance, some astute presidential historians have described Clinton as a man motivated more by a desire to be great than to accomplish great things. And many psychologists attribute Napoleon’s and Mussolini’s insatiable lust for power to a so-called “short-man complex”—a need to be noticed and admired in spite of one’s small physical stature.
Nevertheless, for every leading political voice driven to new ideas by a desire to be noticed or to be different, one can cite many other political leaders clearly driven instead by the courage of their convictions. Iconoclasts Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example, secured prominent places in history by challenging the status quo through civil disobedience. Yet no reasonable person could doubt that it was the conviction of their ideas that drove these two leaders to their respective places.
Turning to the arts, mavericks such as Dali, Picasso, and Warhol, who departed from established rules of composition, ultimately emerge as the leading artists. And our most influential popular musicians are the ones who are flagrantly “different.” Consider, for example, jazz pioneers Thelonius Monk and Miles Davis, who broke all the harmonic rules, or folk musician-poet Bob Dylan, who established a new standard for lyricism. Were all these leading voices driven simply by a desire to be different? Perhaps, but my intuition is that creative ueges are born not of ego but rather of some intensely personal commitment to an aesthetic ideal.
As for the physical sciences, innovation and progress can only result from challenging conventional theories—that is, the status quo. Newton and Einstein, for example, both refused to blindly accept what were perceived to be the rules of physics. As a result, both men redefined those rules. Yet it would be patently absurd to assert that these two scientists were driven by a mere desire to conjure up “different” theories than those of their contemporaries or predecessors. Surely it was a conviction that their theories were better that drove these geniuses to their places in history.
To sum up, when one examines history’s leading voices, it does appear that they typically bring to the world something radically different than the status quo. Yet in most cases, this sort of iconoclasm is a byproduct of personal conviction, not iconoclasm for its own sake.

spiritzy111UID: 200646

Issue 159
"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."（6）
人总是比机器聪明，因为机器只不过是人类的工具而已。

This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines “superiority” and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.
The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any manchine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuse us—for exmple, toy robots, cars, wideo games, and novelty items—are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans wharsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus, when we develop any sort of machine, we always have some sort of end in mind—a purpose for that machine.
As for the statement’s second claim, in certain respects, machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minda ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them—as out tools—to begin with. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in performing rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machine4s have no capacity independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional respenses to intellectual problems.
Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own and to develop so-called “emotional intelligence” has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fictin, we humans unltimately prevail over such machines—as in the cases of Frankenstein’s monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptous to assert with confidence that hemans will always maintain their superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the twenty-first century, we’ll witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we hamans attribute our own superiority.
In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as “tools of human minds”. And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional respense, it also seems fair to claim superiority over out machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then consider whether these machines of the future would be “machines” anymore.