issue184

dali67123054UID: 2841967

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

A majority of people today share a brief that without sufficient data, theorists' conclusions are unwarranted, but do not necessarily indicate that they are grave mistake. In fact, in light of logical thinking, such as reasoning, deducing, scientists also can theorize in the process of research.

Admittedly, it is true that data play an indispensable role in the foundation of certain theories. If it had not been for rich data collected by the father of modern genetics, Mendel genetics wouldn't have been developed in the mid 19th century. Despite Mendel’s theory was not accepted until the turn of the 20th century, all statistical data performed an indispensable role during the period of experiments.

However, the importance of data does not necessarily determine the formation of a theory. Simply put, without adequate data, theorists also have the possibility to develop some far-reaching hypotheses, which ultimately are widely accepted by other scientists. A remarkable example is the discovery of the continental drift theory. Wenger, an American geologist, attained an inspiration regarding the rough match of main continent's edges in the world map. On the basic of merely assumption, the author established the theory of continental drift. A few years later, extensive evidence to substantiate the theory is provided, such as the similarity of seven continents' edge, similar plant and animal fossils found in difference continent. Apparently, the success of the theory of continental drift suggests a general fact that data is not the determiner for the foundation of a theory. Without sufficient data, theorists still could propose profound theories, which are benefit for promote the progress of human civilization.

In addition, in some specific realms, it is difficult to offer sufficient data to sustain well-known theories. Theoretical physics is an apt example to maintain my standpoint. Common sense tells us that the discipline attempts to explain and predict natural phenomena in terms of the mathematical model and abstraction of physics. Sensible people shouldn't require that those scientists offer evidence for their theories in that their theories mainly depend on logical thinking to conclude their anticipation. For instance, Stephen Hawking, the greatest physics at present age, is known for his contributions to theoretical physics, especially in the context of black hole that is a region of space which nothing, including light. Provided the scientist agree with
the speaker's guideline, his theory about black hole may be mired in faraway outer space which data that help support the theory only get from. Furthermore, around the black hole there is an undetectable space that light absorbs all light, including hitting it. Therefore, it is impossible to obtain directed data to construct his theory. Nevertheless, although scientists have no ability to attain much data, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. These totally prove them present. Therefore, it is true that theorists can develop their theories to explain natural phenomena when they are unable to provide sufficient data to sustain their guess.

To sum up, it is presumptuous to claim it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data. According to the speaker's assertion, the development of science may be prevented and consequently human progress would slow down. Although ignoring the importance of data in the foundation of theory is hazardous, we cannot give up theorizing when we have insuperably difficult in collecting data.

dali67123054UID: 2841967

1# dali67123054