[Big Fish]03月12日Issue184--By rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

I partially agree with the speaker's statement that we can't get a theory without data. To my viewpoint, data is the fundamental of scientific theory, while we can't generally judge whether the theory about other things such as art is right from data. So, data needn't to be the prerequisite to judge whether all the theories are correct.

To begin with, theory is a summary about the general regulation of some aspect. As a theory, the correctness is undoubtedly. Before the theory is tested, it could be an assumption only. But the method of testing may be not unique, for the specific way is going with specific realm. Such as the experiments' data can be used to verify the hypothesis of some nature science, we can also use the logical method to deduce some theories which can't get the data directly. No matter what methods we adopt, the only target is to demonstrate the assumption. Either to test if the assumption is corresponding with the reality, or there are not logical flaws, another way of saying, judge whether the assumption can be a theory.

Admittedly, in the realm of science, data is a decisive factor to verify the theory. Generally speaking, data just like a severe judge who is in charge of the destiny of hypothesis. Perhaps there is no proper data to support the assumption, so there will not be a theory can be accepted by public. For example, the Special Theory of Relativity, which was raised by Albert Einstein, encountered a lot of controversies at the beginning. But after it has been proved correct by the data, now it has been a theory which is generally accepted. Even in the economical area, almost all the contemporary economical theories are supported by data. To deduce the economical theory, mathematic way is used by economists. While to test the theory, they need a large amount of data to support it. Separated from data, the science just likes a lame person.

However, in other areas, such as the art and philosophy, we are more accustomed to test the theory by logical deduce or experience. Something can't be verified by data, for we can't search data, or data can't be involved in the test's process. For example, to a conclusion of a philosopher about good and evil, can we illustrate it with data? Even one can give a mathematical model to explain, most people will have doubt about it. Because it is a measure of moral, as well as which is about the values. To this question, different people may have their own consideration, and we can't test it by data. Especially in the art, we even can’t see the data. In contrast, artists have their own theories, which can’t be verified by data, but the heritage of experience in the long term practice. In such realms, idea and logic are more important than data.

In summarize, since we can't explain everything in the world with data, so we can't treat it as the prerequisite of any theory. Only when data can test the theory, and without superfluous trouble by the usage of data, will data is necessary to verify the theory. After all, data is a concise and accurately way to test the theory.

FloridaffUID: 2772878

I partially agree with the speaker's statement that we can't（在作文中最好用cannot,can't 有点口语化） get a theory without data. To my viewpoint, data is the fundamental of scientific theory, while we can't generally judge whether the theory about other things such as art is right from data. So, data needn't to be the prerequisite to judge whether all the theories are correct. （开头段点明作者的观点，开门见山，很好）

To begin with, theory is a summary about （这里是否应该用of？） the general regulation of some aspect. As a theory, the correctness is undoubtedly. （此处undoubtedly是表语，应该用形容词形式：undoubted） Before the theory is tested, （此处的tested若改为attested：证明为真，是否更好一些呢） it could be an assumption only. But the method of testing may be not unique, for the specific way is going with specific realm （应为a specific realm吧） . Such as the experiments' data can be used to verify the hypothesis of some nature science, we can also use the logical method to deduce some theories which can't get the data directly. No matter what methods we adopt, the only target is to demonstrate the assumption. Either to test if the assumption is corresponding with the reality, or there are not logical flaws, another way of saying, judge whether the assumption （这个可以做主语么？换作to judge是不是更好些呢） can be a theory.

Admittedly, in the realm of science, data is a decisive factor to verify the theory （此处用a表泛指是否更好一些） . Generally speaking, data just like a severe judge who is in charge of the destiny of hypothesis. Perhaps there is no proper data to support the assumption, so there will not be a theory （在定语从句中作主语时，其引导词不能省略吧） can be accepted by public. For example, the Special Theory of Relativity, which was raised by Albert Einstein, encountered a lot of controversies at the beginning. But after it has been proved correct by the data, now it has been a theory which is generally accepted. Even in the economical area, almost all the contemporary economical theories are supported by data. To deduce the economical theory, mathematic way is used by economists. While to test the theory, they need a large amount of data to support it. Separated from data, the science just likes a lame person. （本段理证+例证，楼主拿捏得很到位，只是在a 和 the的用法方面，个人觉得有一点点小乱）
However, in other areas, such as the art and philosophy, we are more accustomed to test the theory by logical deduce or experience. Something can't be verified by data, for we can't search data, or data can't be involved in the test's process. For example, to a conclusion of a philosopher about good and evil, can we illustrate it with data? Even one can give a mathematical model to explain, most people will have doubt about it. Because it is a measure of moral, as well as which is about the values （仅用because这个连词，这个不成为一个句子吧，是否应和下文相关呢） . To this question, different people may have their own consideration, and we can't test it by data. Especially in the art, we even can’t see the data. In contrast, artists have their own theories, which can’t be verified by data, but the heritage of experience in the long term practice. In such realms, idea and logic are more important than data.

In summarize, since we can't explain everything in the world with data, so we can't treat it as the prerequisite of any theory. Only when data can test the theory, and without superfluous trouble by the usage of data, will data is necessary to verify the theory. After all, data is a concise and accurately way to test the theory.

总的来说，楼主的此篇文章有理有例，语言方面的表达也比较清晰，如果再注意一下句子的完整性，就更perfect了。（PS：第一次拍文，若有不当之处，还请楼主见谅哈^_^）