- 最后登录
- 2013-4-20
- 在线时间
- 60 小时
- 寄托币
- 180
- 声望
- 5
- 注册时间
- 2011-8-7
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 59
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 203
- UID
- 3128074
- 声望
- 5
- 寄托币
- 180
- 注册时间
- 2011-8-7
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 59
|
我贴上来了 斑竹帮我看看吧~~~觉得 语言 语法 逻辑都有问题,大家帮我看看吧 5.27就要考了:funk:
Issue 59 Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the largest number of people.
I agree that research should be aimed at making contributions to our society; however, it doesn’t mean that scientists or researchers should be required only to focus on the researches which are likely to benefit the most people. In my view, scientists should be free to choose their research approach, as long as their researches start on the positive point.
Admittedly, the value of science research is always judged by its practicability and the contribution to our society. As Watt invented the steam engine, Edison invented the light bulb, Galileo proposed the heliocentric, all these are described as the significant discoveries for their incompatible contribution. However, there are also many researches which may seem useless or provide no value to the society at the first glance but showed vital value behind those significant achievements. Theoretical mathematics is the best example. As for many recondite math formulas or profound calculate methods, we may have no idea whether these math researches are worth to do when it start, even mathematicians cannot tell the intrinsic value. However, these math formulas contribute a lot to various fields (such as physics, engineering, mechanics, computer programming and so on.) as a theoretical foundation. Meanwhile, many calculate methods showed their value in solving math problems among different fields even if they seem useless at start.
Besides, as for many basic, purely ideological subjects, such as philosophy, they have no practical value to society at all, but for the necessary of human ideology, they need to exit and be profound explored. Therefore, it’s unreasonable and impracticable for us to determine whether a research is likely to benefit the society.
Furthermore, if we adopt the recommendation in the topic, putting the benefits to the greatest number of people as essential criteria for researches, may contribute a lot of problems. First, the extent of human explores the inside and outside world will surely be narrowed. Scientist are pursuing to explore the unknown frontiers of the world, even scientists themselves cannot tell how big achievement will be brought by their research, not to mention eliminating the worth of the research. Actually many notable discoveries were born by accidents, or were the byproducts in other researches. By this reason, it’s entirely possible that by following the recommendation in the topic many valuable researches will be strangled in the cradle. Second, many scientists can be forced to give up their original researches and turn to those ostensibly beneficial research. Therefore, the substance of exploration will be covered by interests and a great number of subjects will gradually disappear for “lacking of use”. Finally, our recognition of the world will become narrower and narrower. It’s entirely foreseeable that human civilization will surely deteriorate.
To sum up, if their intrinsic are good and do not harmful for our world, government should encourage all the kinds of researches without counting their value. Meanwhile, when scientists are pursuing their interested explores they should take the value, moral and ethic into concerned and spare no effort to push our society moving forward. |
|