issue9

happyman2000UID: 136936

Issue 9 "Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars’ ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use." 近年来学术领域更加专业化，以至于学者门的研究只作用于很小范围内的人群。除非学者们的研究能适合大范围的人群，他们的想法才有用。

Syllabus:
  同意过渡专业化的危害，但不同意“学者的研究必须有大范围的人群才有用”的观点
1，        Admittedly, this tendency of overspecialization in academy really exercises an imminent  detriment to the fundamental purpose and essence of knowledge, that is, to serve for human.
2，        it seems to go to another extreme by equating the narrow audience with uselessness.
3，        an intended and excessive striving for a wider audience can not always guarantee the use of knowledge and sometimes even harm it

By showing the fact that scholars’ ideas today can reach only a narrow audience, the arguer anxiously expresses his worry about the practical use of overspecialized knowledge. While he properly points out the potential dangers of overspecialization, I still insist that the use of knowledge primarily depends on its logics, nature and intrinsic truth, not on how much audience it can reach.      
   Admittedly, this tendency of overspecialization in academy really exercises an imminent  detriment to the fundamental purpose and essence of knowledge, that is, to serve for human. If scholars confine themselves within a narrow coterie, simply complacent with their purer and purer knowledgeable achievements, or even scornful to any attempts of reaching a wider audience in view that it will harm the purity and completeness of their theories, academy and research, however true it is, and however useful in nature it is,. will inevitably degenerate into a meaningless intellectual game for a few people called as “scholars”. Knowledge will no longer exist as a propeller and booster for advance of mankind, but as a superfluous and redundant burden over humanity for it consumes resources but produces no virtual benefits at all. Today, facing the ever-increasing specialization and consequently scholars’ undue satisfaction with a narrow audience and “pure” knowledge, academy is really running the great risk of becoming the pure intellectual game and redundant burden. Therefore, it is too excessive to stress the hazards and perils of this tendency.  (让步，承认过渡专业化对知识的有用性的危害)
Despite the perilous impacts of overspecialization, it seems to go to another extreme by equating the narrow audience with uselessness. In indeed, there is not a necessary and definite correlation between them. One can hardly allege that some theory with a larger audience such as elementary arithmetic is more useful than that with a smaller audience such as high-advanced arithmetic. If a certain idea in itself is completely false or fallacious, however much audience it could reach, still cannot it find any access to realistic use. Furthermore, almost all the greatest scientific knowledge at its beginning could be understood and appreciated by only a very small elite, for its complexity, abstractness and profundity, and sometimes for its overt defying and denial over traditional agreed-upon ideas. An illustrating example is the undergoing of principle of relativity. When Einstein onerously completed his researches about the correlation between time, space and speed, surely very few people could understand and believe his theory such that his papers were embarrassedly refused by several famous journals. Until the explosion of the first atomic bomb in the Second World War, the principle of relativity began to reach a much wider audience and receive a full acceptation by more and more people. Again, this case indicates the scale of audience has not a direct and permanent influence upon the use of knowledge. （否认听众的多少与知识的有用性之间的关系，听众少，并不意味着知识没有用）   
Moreover, an intended and excessive striving for a wider audience usually can not guarantee the use of knowledge and sometimes even harm it. The current society is vividly characterized with the specialization, through which every body just need to do some relatively specific and simple work and therefore could exert his capacity and efficiency to limit. Because of specialization, people can hardly spare much time to learn other knowledge or techniques,  actually which is  not helpful to promote their efficiency and performance. So, excessive struggle for a wider audience is fruitless, unnecessary and even entirely superfluous to specialized society. This means that a smaller and smaller audience, to some extent, is an inevitable but not harmful consequence of specialization. After all,  without it, the supply of abundant commodities, the convenient and comfortable modern life, and the prosperous modern civilization all would become impossible. (扩大听众既不可行，也不有效)
   In conclusion, a narrow audience is a regular and natural result of the advance in science and technology and the specialized society; it does not mean overspecialization. One shouldn’t expect to overcome overspecialization by means of enlarging the amount of audience. (630 word)

red98UID: 136466

观点很独特
特别是第二点 很sharp  ETS肯定喜欢 如果再注意一下形式 会拿很高的分

he -> he/she  或者 he or she     
his同样 【但愿改你issue的不是一位女士 有人说女权主义者很痛恨只用his的】
how much audience  中 audience 是不可数吗

purer and purer knowledgeable achievements 是 chinglish吗 好像没有以前看到


第二段 觉得不够 只说了一点 研究者的清高自满 而且多说理 如果有例子支持 将会很棒
过分专业化也可能造成了一个很窄的视野 不利于自身的发展 好像有issue题目是强调学科合作 另外一个领域的参与促动了本领域的发展 云云
第三段 十分的棒


Good Luck

happyman2000UID: 136936

谢谢red98的积极评价！我觉得我一个大的弱点是英文表达能力差，写作速度慢，而且很多表达方式不够地道，chinglish味道较浓，文章也不够流畅，有些涩， 或者redundant. 因此，我真心的希望各位能够帮我把文中的一些具体的问题指出来，如果能帮我把一些句子改得更流畅、更地道的话， 我更是无法形容我的感激之情了！
   再次感谢red98，特别是你给我跳出了几处具体毛病！

caichongbaobaoUID: 136935

The arguer anxiously expresses his worry about the practical use of overspecialized knowledge.considering the fact that scholars’ ideas today can reach only a narrow audience,  While he properly (去掉？？)points out the potential dangers of overspecialization, I  insist that the use of knowledge primarily depends on its logics, nature and intrinsic truth, not on how much audience it can reach.
Admittedly, this tendency of overspecialization in academy really exercises an imminent detriment to the fundamental purpose and essence of knowledge, that is, to serve for human. If scholars confine themselves within a narrow coterie, simply complacent with their purer and purer knowledgeable achievements（？）, or even scornful to any attempts of reaching a wider audience in view that it will harm the purity and completeness of their theories, academy and research, however true it is, and however useful in nature it is,. will inevitably degenerate into a meaningless intellectual game for a few people called as “scholars”.（这句很精辟） Knowledge will no longer exist as a propeller and booster for advance of mankind, but as a superfluous and redundant burden over humanity for it consumes resources but produces no virtual benefits at all. Today, facing the ever-increasing specialization and consequently scholars’ undue satisfaction with a narrow audience and “pure” knowledge, academy is really running the great risk of becoming the pure intellectual game and redundant burden. Therefore, it is too excessive to stress the hazards and perils of this tendency.
Despite the perilous impacts of overspecialization, it seems to go to another extreme by equating the narrow audience with uselessness. In indeed, there is not a necessary and definite correlation between them. One can hardly allege that some theory with a larger audience such as elementary arithmetic is more useful than that with a smaller audience such as high-advanced arithmetic. If a certain idea in itself is completely false or fallacious, however much audience it could reach, still cannot it find any access to realistic use. Furthermore, almost all the greatest scientific knowledge at its beginning could be understood and appreciated by only a very small elite, for its complexity, abstractness and profundity, and sometimes for its overt defying and denial over traditional agreed-upon ideas. An illustrating example is the undergoing of principle of relativity. When Einstein onerously completed his researches about the correlation between time, space and speed, surely very few people could understand and believe his theory such that his papers were embarrassedly refused by several famous journals. Until the explosion of the first atomic bomb in the Second World War, the principle of relativity began to reach a much wider audience and receive a full acceptation by more and more people. Again, this case indicates the scale of audience has not a direct and permanent influence upon the use of knowledge. （
Moreover, an intended and excessive striving for a wider audience usually can not guarantee the use of knowledge and sometimes even harm it. The current society is vividly characterized with the specialization, through which every body just need to do some relatively specific and simple work and therefore could exert his capacity and efficiency to limit. Because of specialization, people can hardly spare much time to learn other knowledge or techniques, actually which is not helpful to promote their efficiency and performance. (这个论据不是很有利哦)So, excessive struggle for a wider audience is fruitless, unnecessary and even entirely superfluous to specialized society. This means that a smaller and smaller audience, to some extent, is an inevitable but not harmful consequence of specialization. After all, without it, the supply of abundant commodities, the convenient and comfortable modern life, and the prosperous modern civilization all would become impossible.
In conclusion, a narrow audience is a regular and natural result of the advance in science and technology and the specialized society; it does not mean overspecialization. One shouldn’t expect to overcome overspecialization by means of enlarging the amount of audience. (630 word)h only a narrow audience[/B] 呵呵，思想性比我的文章好多了，我改了文章的第一句。都是我的个人观点，不一定正确：）