Phoenix小组组员10号 issue168

zachary19891018UID: 2765757

168. "Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field."
批判性的判断在任何领域当中都是没什么用处的，除非它是来自于该领域中的专家。


The speaker asserts that critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from professional expert in that field. It has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree insofar as the expert in the field could provide valuable critical judgment of work. However, the assertion is indefensible and in my view, we should listen to the valuable critical opinions from experts in every field.

It is true that the speaker's assertion that the critical judgment of work from the expert in the field is valuable is quite compelling. The expert, who is regarded as authority in the field, is someone who has gained great achievements in the field, has enough experiences, high skills, critical insight, and deep thoughts upon the knowledge in his or her field. With the critical judgment of these persons, we can realize the drawback of our work, get valuable suggestions and can be improved significantly.  Sometimes, the works or researches are too difficult for people in other fields to understand, let alone provide clear and precise judgment. Then, it is obviously only their peers have access to and judge theses works or researches. In short, critical judgment of work which comes from the expert in the field could provide us with opportunities to learn knowledge which we can not learn from praise or other people.

Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because it seems to recommend that critical judgment of work has little value when it comes from outside experts. Critical judgment is always meaningful unless it is unjust, unfair or unreasonable. There is a compelling example. When a government wants to build a factory, a lot of experts rather than only governors might aggregate to discuss the plan. The economists would infer that the factory would enhance the economy of the city; the environmentalists would doubt that the factory would cause air pollution to the city; the ecologists would conclude that the factory would damage the environment of species. How can one argue that these judgments have little value? The fact is that although opinions and critical judgments from experts in various fields are not deep advice and suggestions, they can lead to a comprehensive consideration and innovative ideas of the plan or work and thereby would bring about a better result.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that we should only focus on the critical judgment from inside expert rather than other fields. With critical judgment from inside expert, we can get a deeper consideration; with critical judgment from expert of other fields, we can get a broader and fresher perspectives and ideas. Combinations of different ideas and methods would result in a large amount of fruitions. Therefore, we should better learn what inside expert suggests, and at the same time, consider advice from experts in other fields.

In sum, I concede that the assertion that critical judgment of work in any given field from someone who is an inside expert is valuable is right. Nonetheless, the speaker underrates the importance of judgments from experts in other field. In final analysis, the optimal approach is that works can be adequately judged by experts in the work’s field as well as other fields, as long as the judgments are reasonable and logical.

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

The speaker asserts that critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from professional expert in that field开头第一句几乎照抄了原题，没什么意义. It has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree insofar as the expert in the field could provide valuable critical judgment of work. However, the assertion is indefensible刚才已经说了毕竟有点价值，现在又说无法被辩护，让步和转折间似乎有矛盾 and in my view, we should listen to the valuable critical opinions from experts in every field.

It is true that the speaker's assertion that the critical judgment of work from the expert in the field is valuable is quite compelling. The expert, who is regarded as authority in the field, is someone who has gained great achievements in the field, has 和前面的is一样都是做谓语？成分有点乱enough experiences, high skills, critical insight, and deep thoughts upon the knowledge in his or her field. With the critical judgment of these persons, we can realize the drawback of our work, get valuable suggestions and can be improved significantly.  Sometimes, the works or researches are too difficult for people in other fields to understand, let alone provide clear and precise judgment. Then, it is obviously only their peers同龄人的意思？ have access to and judge theses works or researches. In short, critical judgment of work which comes from the expert in the field could provide us with opportunities to learn knowledge which we can not learn from praise or other people.

Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because it seems to recommend that critical judgment of work has little value when it comes from outside experts. Critical judgment is always meaningful unless it is unjust, unfair or unreasonable. There is a compelling example. When a government wants to build a factory, a lot of experts rather than only governors might aggregate to discuss the plan. The economists would infer that the factory would enhance the economy of the city; the environmentalists would doubt that the factory would cause air pollution to the city; the ecologists would conclude that the factory would damage the environment of species. How can one argue that these judgments have little value? 这个例子似乎有问题，因为他们都是从专业的角度来探讨决策在该专业领域可能引起的后果，经济学家并没有对环境指手画脚。并且，这个例子和你前面一句unjust unfair没有任何关系，因为把那句话删掉根本不影响前后的逻辑承接，因此例子要修改The fact is that although opinions and critical judgments from experts in various fields are not deep advice and suggestions, they can lead to a comprehensive consideration and innovative ideas of the plan or work and thereby would bring about a better result.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that we should only focus on the critical judgment from inside expert rather than other fields这段TS和上一段完全重复. With critical judgment from inside expert, we can get a deeper consideration; with critical judgment from expert of other fields, we can get a broader and fresher perspectives and ideas为什么？没有解释. Combinations of different ideas and methods would result in a large amount of fruitions. Therefore, we should better learn what inside expert suggests, and at the same time, consider advice from experts in other fields. 这一段要么删掉，要么融入上一段的论述中，因为完全是一样的。你这里说的broader不就是上一段的comprehensive的改写吗

In sum, I concede that the assertion that critical judgment of work in any given field from someone who is an inside expert is valuable is right. Nonetheless, the speaker underrates the importance of judgments from experts in other field. In final analysis似乎是一个递进的连词，但实际上没有起到这个效果。你认为题目低估了其他领域专家的意见，不就等于说我们其实应该也把他们纳入考虑，所以nonetheless和in fina anlysis后的两句话是一样的, the optimal approach is that works can be adequately judged by experts in the work’s field as well as other fields, as long as the judgments are reasonable and logical这句话和第三段的几个un是对应的，但因为上文没有解释，所以放在结尾也很突兀。个人以为这个角度还是很好的，其他领域的专家的评论为什么会有这些问题，具体表现是什么，我们到底如何看待，如何区分是just 还是unjust，这个对我们从总体上来看待其他领域专家的意见有什么启示。建议单独开一段详细论述。纯属个人意见，有反驳或值得商讨的地方请告诉我，一起进步，thanks a lot！.