[每日一评] 5.9 每日一评--代班第二天 [复制链接]

angeikim
UID: 4857

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 4
寄托币: 19046
注册时间: 2002-3-18
精华: 45
帖子: 188

发表于 2003-5-10 07:53:24 |显示全部楼层

今天一个朋友要回澳洲，替他饯行:D回来迟了，帖子发的也迟，请大家见谅了。

Issue40
"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."

这个题目分析起来是说学术目的的。作为一个scholar/researcher 应该考虑的是自己的感兴趣的领域所在而不是考虑是不是他们的研究成果是对整个大社会大环境有贡献的。这个题目第一眼看起来好象似乎是有理的，但是想到很多时候很多科学家的成果实际是无意义的。美国不是有一个搞笑诺贝尔奖吗？就是奖励类似的研究的。虽然也是科学成果但是根本就没有实际操作的价值或者对人类或者对社会根本就没有意义的。
但是这个contribution在某些时候也可以引申到名利方面。从这个方面来讲，这个题目是可以成立的。
对这个题目进行进一步的分析，可以看出来题目里面有一个比较，非常明显的比较，more 来带出来的，所以我们可以说这个speaker的观点是很明显的表明了自己是支持哪个方面的。

Should academic scholars and researchers be free to pursue whatever avenues of inquiry and research that interest them, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic, as the speaker asserts? Or should they strive instead to focus on those areas that are most likely to benefit society? 拿问句来起头，来质疑。脱离出了一般的解释题目的开头。虽然不是特别特别，但是还是让人感觉比较的attractive。[/COLOR] l strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons. 非常直白的陈述自己的观点，同意speaker的观点。[/COLOR]

First of all, 典型的连接词，开始陈述观点了。[/COLOR]who is to decide which areas of academic inquiry are worth while? 又是一个问句，但是这个问句的作用和开篇的问句不同了，是引出来自己论证的第一个方面。[/COLOR] Scholars cannot be left to decide.自问自答。[/COLOR] Given a choice they will pursue their own idiosyncratic areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all scholars could reach a fully informed consensus as to what research areas would be most worthwhile. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what would be worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence renders them untrustworthy in any event. 两个否定句非常干净利索的说出作者的看法，没人有能力来决定什么是应该worth researching的。[/COLOR]

Secondly, by human nature we are motivated to pursue those activities in which we excel. To compel scholars to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking--霍金我想就不用介绍了吧-- to research the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole（夸张法）. Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's scholars and researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation, a scholar would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field of study. 这个部分举例说明了，如果把学者或者科学家局限于某个特定的领域内的话会也会局限其施展自己的talents，是资源的浪费。而缺少动力或者兴趣，人也无法完全发挥自己的talents. 用辨证的方法说出interest和contribution二者的关系。

Thirdly, it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenues of inquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. Avenues of intellectual and scientific inquiry that break no new ground amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with unusual claims by scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant--that the sun lies at the center of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is terraforming---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction? 从题目的另外一个点着手，idiosyncratic" and "unusual，举出相应的事例来证明自己的观点，写的非常干净利索。

Those who would oppose the speaker's assertion might point out that public universities should not allow their faculty to indulge their personal intellectual fantasies at taxpayer expense. 开始进行反击了，列出了几个可能的被进行攻击的方向出来先，然后从这个点上展开自己的进攻。典型的以子之矛攻子之盾。这个鬼子作者孙子兵法学的不错不错。Yet as long as our universities maintain strict procedures for peer review, pure quackery（江湖术士） cannot persist for very long. Other detractors might argue that in certain academic areas, particularly the arts and humanities, research and intellectually inquiry amount to little more than a personal quest for happiness or pleasure. This specious argument overlooks the societal benefits afforded by appreciating and cultivating the arts. And, earnest study in the humanities affords—个人很喜欢afford 在这里的用法，大家感觉一下--- us wisdom to know what is best for society, and helps us understand and approach societal problems more critically, creatively, and effectively. Thus despite the lack of a tangible nexus between certain areas of intellectual inquiry and societal benefit, the nexus is there nonetheless.

In sum, I agree that we should allow academic scholars nearly unfettered freedom of intellectual inquiry and research within reasonable limits as determined by peer review. 重申观点坚决表达了自己对speaker的支持，是个非常好的同志。而且同时也给了对这个interests的一个reasonable limits，是一个相对比较隐晦的两面结合的手法。 Engaging one's individual talents in one's particular area of fascination is most likely to yield advances, discoveries, and innovations that serve to make the world a better and more interesting place in which to live. 最后喊了个口号来做了个结尾句。这个句式很不错，值得借鉴。

来个小结，这个文章写的非常干净利索—这个词我已经说了大概3遍不止了在这个文章里面，但是这个确实是我看了这个文章的感觉。够漂亮。而且逻辑线索非常的明显，文章写的也很有力度，事例的证明，引用很充分也恰倒好处，多一分罗嗦少一分就感到不足了。而且句式灵活多变，语言能力尽在行文中体现出来。这个文章值得5。5--6分。如果考虑到TESTING TIME，这个文章应该毫不犹豫的被判6分满分。
有的时候，听大家都说创新，说一般的行文也不够吸引眼球，但是如果可以把最普通的写作手法也运用的非常娴熟，我想你的分数自然也不会低到哪里去。就好象这个作者一样，连接词也都是最普通的first, second, moreover, etc, 但是却写的干净漂亮，自然，句子之间/ thoughts之间的连接转换非常的smooth。所以，基础还是最重要的，忽视基础一味追求新有时候不见得是件好事情。

这些是angeikim个人看法，大家都来说说自己的想法吧，说的多了，讨论的多了自然也都有长进和提高了。要一点一点的来，也不要怕别人说。看我到现在还不是一样被人说水平臭，但是俺就不怕，一样的说自己想说的，因为交流当中自己从别人那里得来的是最impressive的，真正的会被吸收进入脑子变成自己的一部分。J
瞎说了这么多，也别说我麻烦。看多了，也来说说，也说说别人，大家都来互相帮助吧，这样寄托才会变得更好，我们也会变得更强，一起真正实现自己的梦想。:) [/SIZE][/COLOR]

[每日一评] 5.9 每日一评--代班第二天 [复制链接]

to angeikim

回复: to angeikim

Pisces双鱼座

荣誉版主

Leo狮子座