[Big Fish]03月12日Issue184--By 隐雾

隐雾UID: 2776185

Issue No.184
"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
在没有数据之前就得出理论是重大错误

--------------

To discuss the link between theory and data, we'd better identify the both items at first. Since the whole world is too complex to be analyzed in such a limited passage, we focus our topic on science field. So, data can be interpreted into chemical experiment result, statistical research, astronomical observation, and so on. Theory can be defined as an approach to explaining facts by matching data and phenomenon, or predicting something that may takes place in the future. Without data, it makes little sense to theorize because its prediction cannot be substantiated; without theory, data can be used to explain phenomenon which have already occurred, but fail to give more information about the unknown. Therefore, the assertion seems not that reasonable.

Data is important in the field of science. It provides clear comparison and convincing evidence, instead of vague ones, for its undoubted expressions. For example, when I describe the size of an atom quite specifically-it is so small that you cannot see it merely through eyes without the help of instruments-you might not imagine how tiny it should be since there are various things that are hard to seen. Whereas, if I just tell you the diameter of the atomic critical is about 1 nanometer, I guess you suddenly get to know that.
However, it is not enough to pursue data collection and treatment only. Obviously, scientists attempt to apply data we've got to use in other fields or for further research. Then comes theory. Scientists can barely gain achievements when dealing with abundant data as well as insufficient theory. From a chemical point of view, it remains a pity that the theory of molecular structure is not complete to analyze and predict molecular properties via the data of structure. A variety of theories-the theory of molecular orbital, valence-bond theory, VSEPR theory and so on-have been trying to interpret the correlation between data and properties the molecule presents. Unfortunately, the optimal theory that can explain all molecules without exception has not been born yet. On the other hand, more data is easy to get as techniques improve quickly such as the bond length and bond angle inside of a molecule.  As a result, data waiting for theory, scientists cannot efficiently predict the unknown.

According to what we discuss above, it seems that theory does play a critical role in scienific research. Though it is true because theory, which helps to form a system useful for a series of information to solve problems in an organized way, does favor for prediction on scientific future, scientists will suffer puzzles  of forecast that can't be substantiated. For instance, before the telescope together with other instrument was invented, ancient people fail to observe even measure the quantities about the celestial bodies. It was not ridiculous the sun was believed to rotate around the Earth and that our globe stood in the central point. Thanks to the scientific technology and data we get, we now make efforts to seek for another 'Earth' to live on. Data presents so much information for astronomers and mathematicians as well as physicians to work out the exact orbital, locations and the like. Thus, scientists call for data as well.

In order to push science one step further, both theory and data are necessary. This is why I can't agree with the speaker. Once an unexplained phenomena occurs, one part of scientists begin to measure and collect relevant data for calculation and identification while the other part come up with various assumptions and hypothesis to build a theory. The former can choose proper algorithm based on the latter's work; at the same time, the latter develop their thought in terms of the former's work. And this is how science treats theory and data when making progress.

jjooyyUID: 2704028

To discuss the link between theory and data, we'd better identify the both items at first. Since the whole world is too complex to be analyzed in such a limited passage, we focus our topic on science field. (会不会定义在science有点偏？)So, data can be interpreted into chemical experiment result, statistical research, astronomical observation, and so on. Theory can be defined as an approach to explaining facts by matching data and phenomenon, or predicting something that may takes place in the future. Without data, it makes little sense to theorize because its prediction cannot be substantiated; without theory, data can be used to explain phenomenon which have already occurred, but fail to give more information about the unknown. Therefore, the assertion seems not that reasonable.

Data is important in the field of science. It provides clear comparison and convincing evidence, instead of vague ones, for its undoubted expressions. For example, when I describe the size of an atom quite specifically-it is so small that you cannot see it merely through eyes without the help of instruments-you might not imagine how tiny it should be since there are various things that are hard to seen. Whereas, if I just tell you the diameter of the atomic critical is about 1 nanometer, I guess you suddenly get to know that.

However, it is not enough to pursue data collection and treatment（？） only. Obviously, scientists attempt to apply data we(they)'ve got to use(可去掉) in other fields or for further research. Then comes theory. Scientists can barely gain achievements when dealing with abundant data as well as insufficient theory. From a chemical point of view,（这样说可以吗？） it remains a pity that the theory of molecular structure is not complete(建议用unable) to analyze and predict molecular properties via the data of structure. A variety of theories-the theory of molecular orbital, valence-bond theory, VSEPR theory and so on-have been trying to interpret the correlation between data and properties the molecule presents. Unfortunately, the optimal theory that can explain all molecules without exception has not been born yet. On the other hand, more data is easy to get as techniques improve quickly such as the bond length and bond angle inside of a molecule.  As a result, data waiting for theory, scientists cannot efficiently predict the unknown.

According to what we discuss above, it seems that theory does play a critical role in scienific research. Though it is true because theory, which helps to form a system useful for a series of information to solve problems in an organized way, does favor for prediction on scientific future, scientists will suffer puzzles of forecast that can't be substantiated(?). For instance, before the telescope together with other instrument was invented, ancient people failed to observe even measure the quantities about the celestial bodies. It was not ridiculous the sun was believed to rotate around the Earth and that our globe stood in the central point. Thanks to the scientific technology and data we get, we now make efforts to seek for another 'Earth' to live on. Data presents so much information for astronomers and mathematicians as well as physicians to work out the exact orbital(orbit), locations and the like. Thus, scientists call for data as well.

In order to push science one step further, both theory and data are necessary. This is why I can't agree with the speaker. Once an unexplained phenomena(这是复数形式，楼主通篇都搞错单复数的样子) occurs, one part of scientists（中式思维吗？） begin to measure and collect relevant data for calculation and identification while the other part come up with various assumptions and hypothesis to build a theory. The former can choose proper algorithm based on the latter's work; at the same time, the latter develop their thoughts in terms of the former's work. And this is how science treats theory and data when making progress.

精彩 建议 错误
呵呵 能见证楼主的第二次习作，很荣幸！
词汇方面做得比较不错，以下是一些问题
1.仅仅在science领域探讨是否合理？一篇5分的范文写了很多sports方面的东西，因为只有sports，ETS说他limited给5分
2.第二段写 important, 第三段写apply data 第四段写科学需要data?(不是很确定) 是不是少了theorize的论述以及两者的关系？个人觉得这几段看来 已经偏题了
3.每段第一句话最好点明主题 看着轻松一些
p.s.：用word查过语法拼写错误了没？

隐雾UID: 2776185

2# jjooyy

--------
首先，非常感谢你的指导……敬受教！
比如，对于大的泛泛的题，我自己从一些帖子中总结的一条就是可以“大事化小”，精确到一个具体的领域去探讨，这样便于深入。我确实没读过5分作文及其评论，所以对于这一点，醍醐灌顶~

对于每段主题句，我看了你的评论后再读发现果然存在问题，原本心里想好的明确的主题并没写出来。2/3/4段本来立意是这样——data很重要；只有data不够，还要theory；data和theory的相互作用。
在第4段，我现在读发现果然已经很混乱了，而且没有给出中心句。

我把文章都贴在word里的，所以已经改过拼写了，其实我拼写错的并不多，但是常常多打或者少打空格。
-------------
其次，对于文章当中的部分点评，我有如下解释，希望进一步探讨。
1.an approach to doing...是一种……的途径，有这样的用法
2.data treatment我想说的是“数据处理”，其实我也不知道该怎么说，所以用了treatment，不知道怎么改
3.one part of scientists本来写的是part of scientists,但是后来写到the other part的时候才改了，觉得one 和the other 比较搭
------------
综上，很高兴跟你交流，确实受益

jjooyyUID: 2704028

1. :L 我是有这样用法的怀疑 只是不确定 学习了。。
2. data operation 会不会好一点？
3.你觉得scientists可以分parts吗？可以改为group 之类的吧～
另外 其实是忘记的 第一段 举data important 是真的是off topic了，很典型的是 举的例子，atomic 的size，更theorize完全没有关系吧。。