新概念小组第一次作业 6月29日 by Ancient

不沉之月UID: 2907173

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problem, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

As is represented in the issue, the author assert that due to the fact that people become increasingly rely on technology to address problem, individuals’ thinking ability will surely exacerbate. To some extent, I agree with the author on the basis that in some cases, relying on technology to tackle problem does play a negative role in peoples’ ability to think for themselves. However, the author unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to an irreversible extreme, by announcing that such trend will unquestionably lead to the aggravation of our thinking capacity, while overlooks other compelling factors impacting this issue. From my perspective, I hold the opinion of general disagreement towards the statement.

Admittedly, today people’s dependence on technology is prevailing. As is known to all, the ultimate nature of developing and exploiting new technology is to serve for people in terms of meliorating human life. Consequently, in order to lead a convenient life, we will surely continue to advance technology, and inevitably become more and more rely on them. Another fact we should also acknowledge is that the author’s claim that our reliance on technology will surely impair our ability to think for ourselves, although disadvantaged by some obvious shortcomings, is partially undeniable: Technology, with all its promise to empower us, is also making us vulnerable. After all, we could effortlessly imagine the situation in which the dependence of calculators will, to some extent, deteriorate our calculating ability, or the use of GPS system will, more or less, impair our sense of direction. Accordingly, I concede that the author’s claim is partially appropriate.

Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the author since the alleged result might not hold true in some scenarios in that not all industries requires the same degree of technology: fields such as sales and service industries are difficult to be automatic. To be specific, the sales industry might become more and more mechanized, especially in packaging and transporting cargos. However, in a supermarket, for example, a checkout counter may be automated but the shelves and commodities should still be arranged by hand. Similarly, doctors may consult a computer to assist them diagnose illness, but they must themselves make the final judgment and prescribe drugs. In short, unless the author can prove that all human thinking activities can be replaced by technology, the consequence will not certainly take place.

In addition, instead of resulting in the deterioration of our precious meditation ability, our relying on technology might possibly generate an irrelevant outcome. Technology may only serves as a tool to simplify our work process and hence help us get rid of the complicated, onerous and time-consuming problems. Therefore, it is not surely associated with our meditation ability. For instance, in homes, micro-computers installed in the microchip of most appliances in the home control the indoor temperature, regulate home security system and tell the time---such kind of technology has nothing to do with our thinking ability, let alone aggravate it.

Furthermore, even if the fact that we become increasingly rely on technology may possible result in the decay of our thinking ability, yet it is far from sufficient enough to reach the conclusion. Only under the condition that we become completely rely on technology, almost entirely abandon our own thoughts, will the deterioration of our meditation ability really happen. To be Specific, the thinking ability of one should not be much affected if he merely uses the power of the technology as an aide---a tool empowered him with efficiency---to tackle problems---especially when they are onerous and time-consuming.


From the aforementioned analyses, solely based upon the fact that people rely more and more on technology to solve problem, it is irrational to reach an agreement that the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate in the sense that only when other relevant factors associated with the issue, will the result take place. To begin with, technology must be able to replace all sorts of human thinking activities. In addition, technology must have a close correlation with human thoughts. Finally, technology must be able to entirely replace our work and we are completely relying on such technology.


T3. Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

With the tremendous development of human society, people become increasingly draw attention on education. But in the meantime, whether educational institutes have an obligation to prevent students from undertaking research areas where they have little chance to succeed has sparked much debate. From my own perspective, I hold the position that any unilateral view on this controversial issue should give way to a sensible amalgamation of every relevant factors thereby leading to a neutral position for a better solution. My agreement and contention will be greatly strengthened by the following discussion.

Admittedly, the author’s assertion is partially reasonable in that adopting such dissuasion does play a positive role in assisting educational institutions to better nurture students’ ability. To begin with, such measure can prevent students from undertaking fields of study in which they lack the essential talents and gifts to guarantee their triumph, thereby saving not only a great deal of education resources, but their precious youth time as well. For example, If Educational institutes find a student who is not capable of continuing to undertake his own field of study, they can guide this student to transfer to another field in which they have the required aptitude and interest to insure their success hence enable them to better fulfill their potential. Accordingly, the author’s assertion that educational institution has such responsibility is understandable.

Beyond this concession, however,
I cannot entirely agree with the author since it seems to assert that student who is considered to be unlikely triumph in the field he choose will surely fail without exception. It is entirely possible, for instance, that a student who initially was viewed as an inept one in art study, was found with tremendous aptitude in painting later. By that I mean, because of teachers’ subjective judgment or student’s personal diffidence or other possible reasons, one whom we deem to be incompetent in one area may actually possess formidable talents and gifts in it. Besides, it is also probable that students who are incompetent at his field of study at first may gradually become competent to handle it. As is known to all, unlike other creatures, who are shaped largely by their instinct and immediate environment, human beings are constantly being transformed by massive infusion of information and changing environment they meet. Therefore, we cannot deny the possibility that one can surmount his own weakness in learning and become elite in the field where he was once deemed to lose.

In addition, another downside of educational institution take the responsibility to prevent students from pursuing fields in which they are unlikely to succeed is that it may cause some students lack the elementary knowledge to become qualified students. Specifically, if we encourage educational institutes to dissuade students from pursuing fields in which they are unlikely to succeed, then it is possible that students who are considered not capable of handling fundamental fields(e.g. math, physics) will quit these fields, which will lead these students unable to become highly successful students in other fields.This is due to the fact that, fundamental fields describes the most basic objects, forces, relations between them and laws governing them, such that all other fields may be in principal derived from them, therefore, a student lack fundamental knowledge is unlikely to succeed no matter which field he studies.

Furthermore, if educational institutes take such responsibility, it will force them to invest a great deal of manpower and financial aid to judge students’ ability and dissuade them from pursuing fields in which they are unlikely to succeed, which will severely disturb institution’s normal operation. In addition, no matter what the intention is, such act also deprives students’ self-freedom of choosing whatever they prefer, which is advocated by many renowned scholars as one of the most significant features of modern education.

To sum up, from the aforementioned analyses, the issue of responsibility is a complex one, requiring objective judgment. Consequently, there is no easy or certain answer. In the final analysis, according to me, educational institutes could provide students with information about their judgment concerning students’ aptitude for pursuing fields they choose, and offer objective advices to help students make their own decision.

T17.Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free.


With the tremendous development of human society, people become increasingly draw attention on technology. But in the meantime, whether formal education plays a positive role in education has sparked much debate. Some people believe that formal education often helps to free our minds and spirits, while others claim that it tends to restrain them. From my own perspective, I hold the position that in order to free our minds and spirits, formal education is indispensible. My agreement and contention will be greatly strengthened by the following discussion.

Convincing arguments can be made that formal education does play a positive role in cultivating our minds and spirits. As is known to all, the purpose of education is to impart some basic knowledge, skills and methodologies to students, and by this way our minds and spirits are freed. Viewed in this fashion, formal education is critical because it is the prerequisite of the freedom of our minds and spirits: The true mental freedom of human beings does not mean that individuals can flout any boundaries and limitations, which is nothing more than a reverie and makes little sense. Rather, if we want to obtain true mental freedom, we should first acquire basic knowledge, skills and methodologies, which are the cornerstone of our minds and spirits and can be learned through receiving formal education, to help us understand the world around us thereby allow us to give full play of our imagination. If we consider what we have learned from formal education as a circle, then the larger the circle is, the more space we would have to imagine and create. In short, formal education makes the freedom of minds and spirits possible.

Admittedly, formal education sometimes does seem to restrain our minds and spirits. The existing education system may have put too much emphasis on the high scores and what has been proved through experiments and practices tends to inhabit our minds and spirits instead of set them free. For example, during Renaissance the famous heliocentric cosmology proposed by Copernicus, which displaces the earth from the center of the universe, was not accepted by the general public for the ingrained belief of geocentric theory, hence restrained people’s imagination about the cosmos for a long period. However, such phenomenon is not the original purpose of education and through proper institutions and reforms, we could solve these problems. To be specific, we could adopt more flexible and effective criteria to judge students’ performance and create more healthy and objective academic ambience to avoid prejudice and obstinacy of our thought.

In sum, from the aforementioned analysis, this issue is a complex one, requiring objective judgment. In the final analysis, according to me, formal education is an indispensible element to ensure the freedom of our minds and spirits, but its system still need to be perfect to better set our thoughts free.