{shinning小组}作业贴 seal126

seal126UID: 2901205

184题目"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."



The speaker asserts that "if we have not mastered enough data to reach a conclusion hastily, we will make a serious mistake". The claim is correct partially for the reason that without data to analyze, the only theory we could draw is paradoxical. However, the assertion is based on a dubious assumption that we are able to get sufficient information under any circumstance, which is almost impossible.



There is no doubt that any theory no matter in scientific domain, business domain or militaria domain all need numerous research from which we get ample data. None but precise and adequate data leading us theorist correctly or we will never draw sound conclusion. Let's take science for instance. In areas of astronomy, it used to be believe that the earth is the center of universe which is proposed by ancient Greeks, lacking complicated equipment to observe universe, let alone acquire enough data. Our ancestor claims the geocentric theory only based on their experience and naked eye without accurate data. Not until Kopernik proposed Heliocentric who had pursuit predecessors' works carefully finding the original mistakes and acquired scientific data. Thanks to his accurate and sufficient data, the masses transformed from fallacy to truth. Theory found on data also applies to military sphere. Just as the old saying goes"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". Obviously, data is the necessaryto contribute to a correct theory, or we will deviate from correct theory, even suffer from disaster.

Yet, even if acquiring data we need it cannot guarantee the theory we conclude is absolutely correct. Perhaps the data is not enough to draw conclusion or perhaps the data is completely wrong resulting in absurd assertion. How to identify whether the data is precise or not in case of drawing mistake theory? We all know that usually, scientists make a large amount of experiments again and again before they come to the final conclusion, but under some special circumstance we must make conclusion without enough time to judge the data even that it is too emergency to acquire data. Opportunity fleeting, how pity it is seeing opportunitys go away and just waiting for data timeless? Granted that data is acquired in time, is it believable? The data we get to know is like a flexible circle. The amount of data is larger, the bigger circle is, but the known areas increase at the same time. If we always waiting for sufficient data, nothing will we get to know. Science and technology would never develop, human would remain at the same point. Thus, sometimes daring to make theory with limited or even no data is necessity. Perhaps step forward bravely to make a hypothetical is more important to afraid of making error. However, this doesn't mean that we can draw conclusion temerariously.

To sum up, I agree with the speaker that data is necessary and important to theory, but it is not the sufficient condition to make sure that theory is completely correct. In some cases, a proper hypothesis is necessary, and we can exam whether it is correct after acquiring enough data.

seal126UID: 2901205

17"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

The speaker categorizes laws as two types: just and unjust. Although it is responsibility for every individual to obey just laws, resisting unjust laws is more important. The claim seems dualism to some extent. Supporting the right assertion that we believe in ourselves judgment do not mean rebelling the improper judgement that other regard apt in return. Even if obeying unjust laws looks paradoxical, it does not necessarily follow that people should rebel laws.

Under certain circumstances, disobedience of law is a sublime virtue. As everyman has responsible for his country. When the national law which is essential important to guarantee the stable and develop of society, especially for the future of our motherland appearing unfair, every citizen should shoulder their burden bravely and firmly. During the unforgettable disaster of the World War Two, instantly supply of Germany Fascist troops contribute to national laws that every citizen reaching a certain age is obligation to perform military service. At first, almost the nation joined the army with great enthusiasm for the reason that they believe their mission is to emancipate all mankind and the laws of serving the military is just. Later, when some individuals awared of falsehood, they determinedly resisted unjust laws and even did their best to solve victim no matter how dangerous they took. A classical film, Oscar-winning, called Schindler's List were well-known, which reflect that historical background. Similarly, before the American Civil War, slavery obligating that people cannot survive slave privately. Yet, some white people opposite unjust laws and took risks to liberate slave. Therefor, when the laws are unjust and against people's conscience, justice individuals should follow their heart without hesitation.

However,without a clearly-defined criteria to judge laws, individual cannot rashly to conclude to criticize whether a law is just or not. As we all know that the aim of laws is to protect great majority of people, not personal or some little clubs. Just as the well-known saying that freedom for a citizen is limited by the equally freedom for anyone else. Now that laws limit people to some degree, it is easily regarded as unjust by their own standpoint. Thus, when we hold opinion that some laws are unfair, we should think about whether it is ourselves responsibility, instead laws. Assuming that what will our world become if criminal thinks themselves under unjust treatment and claim themselves innocence.Therefor, since laws cannot guarantee interest of every citizen, it cannot expect everyone support it, nor can we encourage that every individual disobey unjust laws in their opinion. Besides, even if some laws are unjust indeed, people should take the feasibility into account. Once against laws, opponents would confront the whole country even military. Perhaps a wiser way is to propose suggestion to government and ask for revise the unjust legislation.

To sum up, people should follow their own standards of behaviour rather than unjust laws and regard their obligation to correct them heart and soul. What's more, unjust laws must be considered carefully if they are contrary to benefit of majority people. Although unjust legislation may be exist in some cases, the most important thing is to find a proper and efficient way to correct it

seal126UID: 2901205

147"Tradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them."

During the long process of history, tradition has seen developed of human being. The coming of the Industrial Revolution bring about a big step forward of social, technological progress, economic prosperity, information explosion, all of these leading to modernization. When people enjoy fast and efficient lives, more and more traditional factors which seems useless are ignored even abandoned. The conflict between tradition and modernization are so radical as if people must choose one between them. However, tradition and modernization are not incompatible at all. Sometimes they are complimentary to each other.

After hundreds of years accumulation, tradition reflecting human society itself is worthy of great worth and countless treasure such as virtue, customs, and other significance should not only avoid to be throw away but also remain to generations. Furthermore, modernization depend on tradition to some extent. Let's take science for instance. (感觉例子不好说)... Perhaps nothing can trend to perfect when it is born including theory of science. Yet, without tradition being based on, nor can modernization establish. As we all know that the first generation computer, calling Eniac that include thousands of tubes, is so huge that it occupies a space of 150 square meters, weighting 30 tons. Later, microcomputer that the size is smaller and the speed of calculation is faster becomes widespread gradually. Then, laptop are welcomed for its compaction and convenience. However, whatever kinds of computer, they all on the base of tradition structure named Von Neumann. Thus, we can see that modernization depend on tradition. Just as Newton saying that" If I can see the further, it is become I stand on the shoulder of the giants". The assertion reflect the relationship between tradition and modernization that modernization is to improve and perfect tradition, not to department from it.

On the other hand, though tradition is good for its advantage, it is not far away from modernization. Modernization just like floating water and tradition just like a lake. If no fresh water flow into lake, the lake will be dried up and tradition will disappear one day. Modernization famous for convenience, flexible, popular has its own outstanding obviously. Tradition should make use of advantage of modernization to flourish and spread to future. Spring Festival is a classical and most important festival in China. Nowadays, except traditional customs like sending gifts to each others and enjoying a big meal, sending messages on a phone to friends to express blessing On Chinese New Year's Eve is welcomed. Thinks to this modern way, traditional festival exchange their greetings easier and more convenient. Hence, traditional should grab the advantages of modernization to generate.

To sum up, although this may be true in some cases that the differences between tradition and modernization seems huge, they cannot be apart from each other. Neither of them can survive for a long time. Only complement each other liking parasitism can they make progress.