issue184 红尘笑看沧桑 互改小组作业 by woshisuper

woshisuperUID: 2737087

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."

Actually, I disagree with what the speaker claims when I catch a first glimpse of the topic. Whether it is wrong or not to make a conclusion without data should be considered carefully because it is not such easy and simple as it appears superficially.

Admittedly, most correct theories can be examined thousands times contribute to the fact that they have been proved by numerous data before theorized. After scrutiny on every Nobel Prize winner’s research fruits, we will find it is right that a good theory needs a lot of data to prove the correctness. And I respect these authoritative theories.

However, what we are talking about is not only the result of the theory but also the process of making a theory. The whole thing becomes meaningful only when we consider about the combination of both the process and the result.

To begin with, we should understand the importance of assumptions. There are so many theories were thought up as an assumption. Galileo’s most contributions to the science were almost not examined by Galileo himself. In fact, especially the most famous theory about the experiment 'Leaning Tower of Pisa' was not taking place in reality. All situations were dreamed in his mind just as he told his friends. However we cannot deny that Galileo and his theory play an important role in the science.

Then, we should talk about another situation that some theory didn't have data before theorized due to the unenlightened conditions at that time. Einstein general relativity even now cannot be proved absolutely today, let alone that at his epoch, nearly nobody understood his special relativity though it was proved later. That’s why Einstein cannot be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics as a result of building Einstein theory. Of course, nobody can deny the greatness of his research fruits.

Thirdly, even if the theory without data has been proved wrong, we still cannot conclude that it is a grave mistake. Just thinking about Aristotle, most of his theories don’t have evidences to support and have been proved wrong eventually. However, his theories also offer many new ideas which enlighten a lot of scientists to create correct theories. See, I don’t regard these mistakes as graves but as roads to the success.

To sum up, the theory without data is not the calamity of the scientific doomsday. Whether the theory has been proved right or wrong is both OK. The most important thing is that the scientists have the creativity which is the original power of improving the level of science. If someone was struggling into the new theory only because of lack of the data, that is a huge grave mistake.