issue204 好像我好久都没贴作文了，经验与理论

imongUID: 140258

写了两个小时啊，汗~都这时候了

204"We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all."

I agree with the speaker on the claim that people learn through direct experience, yet he/she has gone too far to assert that nothing is learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it. Unquestionably direct experience is an important source of knowledge, but the usefulness of accepting experienced theories not experienced does not stay constant, as a case-by-case study is required in this aspect.

First of all, I would like to question the claim that nothing can be learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it, as in some cases such claim does not stand. For example, thought Einstein has proposed the great theory of relativism, which has been proven true for light particles by an experiment that successfully examined variance in life of a radioactive element, it is still impossible for most students to directly experience travels of such high speed. The thought seems very attractive that students learn relativism by sitting in a spaceship traveling at high speed, close to that of light, and watch the outside to recognize the difference with low speed travels. Unfortunately, until so far such imagination is still impracticable, though possibly in the future universities may arrange such experiment when conditions allow. However, lack of such experiment does not impede the study of relativism at all, as students can perfectly solve given problems and give predictions to experimental results using the theory they accepted, with no direct experience. In this case, direct experience is not indispensable, and students also gain a lot by solely theoretical studies. This situation applies widely in the field of natural science. Though experiment as a source of experience is an important means to learn, it is not necessarily essential but only assistance to theoretical studies. More importantly, lack of experience does not necessarily impair learning, as the example of learning relativism has suggested, and it is the case for all students working in abstract calculation. Hence, the claim that nothing is learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it is proven wrong in the study of natural science, since under such circumstances experience is not a must, an it has limited impact on learning.

Nevertheless, in some other cases direct experience is of such significance in learning that mere theory seems almost, and sometimes they are, useless. The situation is most conspicuous in business administration. Those in charge of personnel know this point very well that in most cases, a master of business administration with no working experience is inferior to a sophisticated businessperson with no degree at all. The sharp contrast to the situation in natural science is determined by the nature of business administration. For natural science theories are well-established principles and instructions, useful because of their certainty that stem from including most relevant factors and having little dependence on external conditions. (Here the external condition is defined as all the factors that are considered irrelevant in the theory.) Yet for business administration the situation is much more complicated and everything is raveled. Hardly can any theories on business administration include enough factors since there are so many uncertainties in the field of business. Therefore, theories become very little useful for its unilateral prediction, ignoring external impacts, often leads to unanticipated results, while sophisticated business persons are much more attentive to the potentially influential phenomena, mostly because they have similar experience before. In this sense, to learn mere theory is far from enough and without direct experience in business one can say nothing is actually learned. Thus, the speaker's claim is justifiable in the field of business administration where experience dominates over theory.

In conclusion, the speaker's assertion depends on specific situation. In the field of business administration without direct experience actually nothing can be learned from mere theory, yet in the field of natural science it is just the contrary. It is too arbitrary, therefore, to take that assertion as a universally applicable conclusion.

似乎又有一点感受
我自己的问题出在写作安排上，往往开始25到30min只写了开头和body1，然后后30min写得多得多（有两次45min-55min中写完一段，而前边是10min-30min写完一段），而前几次写完了都发现重点都掉在最后一段，所以不由得不想一想是不是不要老是用循序渐进的线索，而是最熟悉，最方便，最关键的part先写出来，可能要好些。线索则是做一些相应的改变，主要来说，自己不要和自己较劲。
现在只是一个设想，下午再写一写证实一下

xbdebbUID: 142129

我自己的问题出在写作安排上，往往开始25到30min只写了开头和body1，然后后30min写得多得多（有两次45min-55min中写完一段，而前边是10min-30min写完一段），而前几次写完了都发现重点都掉在最后一段，所以不由得不想一想是不是不要老是用循序渐进的线索，而是最熟悉，最方便，最关键的part先写出来，可能要好些。线索则是做一些相应的改变，主要来说，自己不要和自己较劲。
现在只是一个设想，下午再写一写证实一下
　　
英雄所见相同　恩　

xbdebbUID: 142129

we learn through direct experience , to accept a theory without experience it is to learn anything
Is really we would learn nothing at all without direct experience? To some extent it is naïve to say that theories are useless if we can not experience them.
Admittedly, when it comes to science discovery and breakthrough ,knowledge always comes out from practice. Jane invented the loom when she was working in the factory. Wright brothers made the world narrower with the invention of the plane while they were working in a bicycle shop. Galileo founded the free falling theory though his thousands of experiments. Edison let the night bright with the bold after hundreds of failure of experiment .Whatever breakthrough were all natured in the practice. Therefore, practice is the bedrock of our study, without which ,any greatness or success is water without source.
Besides, it is true that if we put our theory into practice , we can find its deficiency even enhance and improve by correcting it. Nowadays , in whichever college there is labs where the students can  make experiments to test the theory they study in the class. This process is indispensable in that it can not only enhance the impression of the theory but also test whether it is true or not. In fact this method has derived from the ancient Rome since the emergence of the father of science ---Galileo who gave us a classical science method that is 1 find a problem 2 guess the answer 3 test it in experiment . This method has been using in our research which just illustrates that the theory can survive and thrive after the test of practice .
However, not all theory should be experienced before accepted it which will inevitably waste dear time . As we know almost all the theory we are learning now has already been tested by our ancients for hundreds even thousands times which enough verified its rightness.
So there is no need for us to experience every theory which exactly is the advantage of us over our ancients who had neither existing theory to use nor any reference book to ask for but developed their own system of knowledge from experience . Since they preserved for us such a big tremendous treasures of knowledge accumulated  by their experience ,
it is unreasonable to deny using it. If we just like a bigotry to experience every theory handed downed from them we will find us like soldier without weapon in hand and hard to improve let alone achieve any breakthrough.
In sum , it is important and indispensable for us to put our theory into practice to enhance it and test it, however there is no need to oversimplify it to deny accepting any theory before experience.


先铁一片　吃饭回来给你看

blake_wangUID: 9871

1," theory of relativity " may be correct expression instead of yours.
2, cases supporting the view of paragraph 2 are less convincing than that of paragraph3.
3, it is useful to write anything you write well offhand rather than definitely beginning with the first paragraph.

happyman2000UID: 136936

粗粗地看了一遍，第一感觉是这是篇典型的立场摇摆不定型的作文。
一般而言，做case by case 分析，必须要非常明确地指出，在什么case下，a 是重要的，在什么case下，b又是重要的。光举几个例子是不行的，让人觉得你并没有真正地理解该问题的复杂性。
做折衷分析，必须要有明确的重点，尽量不要两部分平均用力。imong你曾经说过，a....b....， 重点一般应放在b上。你看看你的开头，I agree with the speaker on the claim that people learn through direct experience, yet he/she has gone too far to assert that nothing is learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it. 再看看你的结构，你的重点到底是什么？

happyman2000UID: 136936

还有，忘了指出，做case by case分析时，除了要对不同的case要给出确定性的定义以外，还要分析原因，即为什么在这类case下A 是重要的或不重要，然后才是举例论证。

imongUID: 140258

同意，在具体例子的基础上要进一步点明本质的区别。今天写的时候重点不在这里，疏忽了。

imongUID: 140258

Is really （is it true that）we would learn nothing at all without direct experience? To some extent it is naive to say that theories are useless if we can not experience them.

Admittedly, when it comes to science(scientific) discovery and breakthrough ,knowledge always comes out from practice. （最好加一个For example让电脑看）Jane invented the loom when she was working in the factory. Wright brothers made the world narrower with the invention of the plane while they were working in a bicycle shop. Galileo founded the free falling theory though his thousands of experiments. Edison let the night bright with the bold after hundreds of failure of experiment .Whatever breakthrough were all natured in the practice. Therefore, practice is the bedrock of our study, without which ,any greatness or success is water without source(water without source?无源之水？不是吧).

Besides, it is true that if we put our theory into practice , we can find its deficiency even enhance and improve by correcting it. Nowadays , in whichever college there is（are） labs where the students can make experiments to test the theory they study in the class. This process is indispensable in that it can (去掉can) not only （加help）enhance the impression(perception或者comprehension) of the theory but also test whether it is true or not (validity). In fact this method has derived from the ancient Rome since the emergence of the father of science ---Galileo who gave us a classical science method that is 1 find a problem 2 guess the answer 3 test it in experiment (说话也没有这样随便的，使用适当的连接词和遵守writing conventions). This method has been using in our research which just illustrates that the theory can survive and thrive after the test of practice .

However, not all theory should be experienced before accepted it which will inevitably waste dear time （怪）. As we know almost all the theory we are learning now has already been tested by our ancients for hundreds even thousands times which enough verified its rightness.

So there is no need for us to experience every theory which exactly is the advantage of us over our ancients who had neither existing theory to use nor any reference book to ask for but developed their own system of knowledge from experience . Since they preserved for us such a big tremendous treasures of knowledge accumulated by their experience ,

it is unreasonable to deny using it. If we just like a bigotry to experience every theory handed downed from them we will find us like soldier without weapon in hand and hard to improve let alone achieve any breakthrough. （这个比喻很勉强）
（这三个小段是一段内容吧？）

In sum , it is important and indispensable for us to put our theory into practice to enhance it and test it, however there is no need to oversimplify it to deny accepting any theory before experience.

我的感觉：你是说experience很有用，但是没有必要所有的theory都去experience一下。我认为最后要扣到we learn very little (or very much) 上边，而你说得很少。前后三部分的组织关系显得零散。个人看法。

QQsugarUID: 136441

I agree with the speaker on the claim that people learn through direct experience, yet he/she has gone too far to assert that nothing is learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it. Unquestionably direct experience is an important source of knowledge, but the usefulness of accepting experienced theories not experienced does not stay constant, （这种句子最好改一改吧，有点awkward）as a case-by-case study is required in this aspect.
   （我的开头是：As is so often pointed out, direct experience is critically instructive and conductive to the learning of theory. However, it would be unfair or even presumptuous to generalize all theories in the assertion that none theory learning would be useful until the stage that it is combined with utilitarian account. Such an assertion has turned against some abstract or fundamental theory which is, at least in its early stage, hard to be linked with practical experience.）
First of all, I would like to question the claim that nothing can be learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it, as in some cases such claim does not stand. For example, thought Einstein has proposed the great theory of relativism, which has been proven true for light particles by an experiment that successfully examined variance in life of a radioactive element, it is still impossible for most students to directly experience travels of such high speed. The thought seems very attractive that students learn relativism by sitting in a spaceship traveling at high speed, close to that of light, and watch the outside to recognize the difference with low speed travels. Unfortunately, until so far such imagination is still impracticable, though possibly in the future universities may arrange such experiment when conditions allow. (This example has aptly illustrated your point!) However, (一个建议，其实表示转折的词有很多的了，比如说，这里就可以用fortunately代替however啊)lack of such experiment does not impede the study of relativism at all, as students can perfectly solve given problems and give predictions to experimental results using the theory they accepted, with no direct experience. In this case, direct experience is not indispensable, and students also gain a lot by solely theoretical studies. This situation applies widely in the field of natural science. Though experiment as a source of experience is an important means to learn, it is not necessarily essential but only assistance to theoretical studies. More importantly, lack of experience does not necessarily impair learning, as the example of learning relativism has suggested, and it is the case for all students working in abstract calculation. Hence, the claim that nothing is learned by accepting a theory without experiencing it is proven wrong in the study of natural science, since under such circumstances experience is not a must, an it has limited impact on learning. （Admittedly, theory research and the correspondingly of theory learning could to some extent be detached from the practical utility.）这段的条理不是很清晰哦，而且语言上也有一点累赘的感觉。

Nevertheless, in some other cases direct experience is of such significance in learning that mere theory seems almost, and sometimes they are, useless. The situation is most conspicuous in business administration. Those in charge of personnel know this point very well that in most cases, a master of business administration with no working experience is inferior to a sophisticated businessperson with no degree at all. The sharp contrast to the situation in natural science is determined by the nature of business administration. For natural science theories are well-established principles and instructions, useful because of their certainty that stem from including most relevant factors and having little dependence on external conditions. (Here the external condition is defined as all the factors that are considered irrelevant in the theory.) Yet for business administration the situation is much more complicated and everything is raveled. Hardly can any theories on business administration include enough factors since there are so many uncertainties in the field of business. Therefore, theories become very little useful for its unilateral prediction, ignoring external impacts, often leads to unanticipated results, while sophisticated business persons are much more attentive to the potentially influential phenomena, mostly because they have similar experience before. In this sense, to learn mere theory is far from enough and without direct experience in business one can say nothing is actually learned. Thus, the speaker's claim is justifiable in the field of business administration where experience dominates over theory.

In conclusion, the speaker's assertion depends on specific situation. In the field of business administration without direct experience actually nothing can be learned from mere theory, yet in the field of natural science it is just the contrary. It is too arbitrary, therefore, to take that assertion as a universally applicable conclusion.
总的感觉是你的case-by-case 分析并不到位，究竟什么时候二者可以分开来，又是什么时候必须理论联系实践呢?
其实我觉得这个论题并不适合用case by case 的方法来写，因为理论的确需要和实践结合才能更深切的体会到理论的价值所在，（as much as possible）， 但是在有一些特殊的情况下， 比如说对一些过于抽象的理论是很难以和实践经验联系起来的，过于强求反而会影响对这些理论的学习。

happyman2000UID: 136936

做姐姐的总是很关心弟弟呀！

QQsugarUID: 136441

呵呵，我也很关心happyman的啦。
你贴出来，我一定给你改，只不过你的文章总是写的很好，让我无从下笔啊。
总之，在gter的鼓舞下加油，大家都是兄弟姐妹哦。。。

happyman2000UID: 136936

最初由 QQsugar 发布
[B]呵呵，我也很关心happyman的啦。
你贴出来，我一定给你改，只不过你的文章总是写的很好，让我无从下笔啊。
总之，在gter的鼓舞下加油，大家都是兄弟姐妹哦。。。 [/B]

imong有你这么个好姐姐真是幸福呀！

imongUID: 140258

哇塞，你们怎么知道这个姐姐的存在的？wondering

这篇文章嘛，就是说，我自己其实很清楚问题的所在，但是只知道有问题而不会解决是没用的...还要考虑时间和proficiency...

case by case 的问题，我当时就这么想的，于是就写下来了。还是说，如果抓住case中更本质的东西就好得多。

However, nevertheless, nontheless, fortunately/unfortunately都可以啊，我那里用的However没什么问题吧，难道说连续用了两次？

angle123UID: 105697

一点个人之见，我觉得第二段是不是太极端了，虽说成理就行，但太过极端就会影响论证的自然，我觉得可以在肯定理论的基础上谈时间的重要性， 比如说哈佛的案例教学

shaohaoMTUID: 137980

好长啊！建议是不是通过改换句式和加些小词如partially,conditionally之类来简练一下。
毕竟，逻辑才是最重要的。我还有10天就上鼎钧了，决定把逻辑放在字数前。不知各位意下如何？