欢迎拍文修改 issue153

yaniiUID: 2807225

153 "Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively." [05/24; 06/1]


Should we be skeptical about everything?

What on earth should pupils express skepticism about whatever they are teached or not? It depends. In other words, I do agree that we should take skeptical eyes on study materials, subject to the proviso that it never be overdone and can help one explore the world.

It is highly appreciated for one to query the traditional notion, especially the authority, whose validity is only confirmed on the given times. Time alters concept. Our horizon of the world is largely broadened along the path of our progress. What an unshakable fact is likely to fall groundless with the new method and our broadened knowledge. When the physicists, in the 19th century, believe that the main structure of physics is well-built, all the descendents need to do is decorate in minor spans. Einstein, one of the greatest physicists so far, challenged the three laws of classical mechanics of Newton, conceived the special theory of relativity followed by the general theory of relativity, and caused an upheaval in physics and astronomy. By querying and challenging the tradition, we make progress.

On the individual level, invariably passive accepting the subject materials strangles creativity and vitality, producing incompetent citizens. To question is to explore and validate. To contradict the convention, one must search relevant materials, easily overlooked if accept passively, the background, the theoretical basis and the effort to deduct the preposition. Whatever the results turns out, confuting or confirming the original one, one holds it fast in mind. On the contrary, passive acceptance tends to be fleetly erased.

On the other side are two compelling arguments against querying everything one is studying. One such argument is that putting everything under suspicion, how can we build our own knowledge system? Query entails relevant theoretical basis, experience, clear logic deduction against it and the objective for such behavior. We cannot contradict any theory without certain dialectical thinking just as we cannot accept it without such. In the meantime, if a rational query is to make real breakthrough, the arguer has to be familiar with its background, the proof and argument supporting them. A hasty question, before probing into the essential, amounts to a hasty conclusion.

The next argument against the speaker's assertion has to do with one's desire and occupation. Not all the man aim at making breakthrough in a particular field, especially the field irrelevant with his occupation. If one's occupation is all about practice, it's never a sensible notion to waste time to explore the forming process or verify a certain conclusion. A band clerk, for example, needs not to question the validity of an economic theory, if he is not ambitious of making such breakthrough. Similarly, materials from the other field to improve one in a particular field, with its all validity playing little role in one's agenda, need us no energy to query and analysis.

In the final analysis, when acquiring something new, it merits query if we are aware that by doing so it enhances our knowledge, and don't cost us undue energy to explore the unknown. After all, it’s our goal and vigor that decide the extent to which we explore.