【独立写作】classgrass作业贴

classgrassUID：2986786

请romanus老师修改～多谢！

Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
All scientific discoveries should be shared among all scientists all around the world; the government and businesses should not keep any discoveries in secret.


There is a public debate today that whether all scientific discoveries researched by governments and business groups should be shared among all scientists worldwide or not. Some people believe with Bhartrihari, a philosopher in the ancient India, once said, that is “Knowledge grows when shared”, and thus declaim that sharing the knowledge would only accelerate the development of human society. However, considering the effects that modern scientific knowledge can cause, it is not for sure that all the usage of scientific discoveries would engender to a good and honest consequence.

Some high-tech discoveries are dangerous. If the evil organization uses them, it would be a threat to national security, so the detailed information should not become public. A particular example for this is the nuclear power; the South Korea is trying to develop this powerful weapon to realize its political ambition. Once it has been accomplished, no doubt that the nuclear weapon, manipulated by the South Korea government, would turn into a time boom threatening the world peace. So in this case, governments which have the nuclear technology should not only keep this confidential, but also try their best to forbid South Korea from doing such research. Sharing all scientific discoveries indefinitely may cause unpredictable damage to the world safety.

Additionally, it breaks the laws of the market. For some business corporations, their intention is making profits. If the government forces them sharing the scientific information disinterested, it will harm their rights and interests, and dampen their enthusiasm. Furthermore, communism in scientific discoveries attracts some free-riders, who only take advantage of others’ achievement but do not make any contribution. In this way, science institutions are not well encouraged, because their ownerships are not well protected. So we should regular the science technology market under economic rules.

Although knowledge has no boundaries and sharing all scientific discoveries can promote the development in technology realm, we should also notice the potential menace to the national security and side-effect to the business market. As some modern technologies are double-edge sword, powerful knowledge should not be shared easily, only the qualified people can access to them. For some profitable scientific discoveries, we should show respect to researchers, and allow them to trade their technique under the government regulation.

forestpencilUID：2856323

classgrass 发表于 2013-2-11 21:32
今天的作业～

没有硬伤很强啊！要向你学习~

classgrassUID：2986786

今天的作业 2.12

classgrassUID：2986786

0212里面1943美国洛杉矶光化学烟雾事件真是自己想的，是化学老师反复提过的...不过还是查了下photochemical的拼写方法...

daigualuUID：3401736

改得有点晚了，抱歉，你给我的很认真，多谢了

mpromanusUID：2565872

classgrass 发表于 2013-2-12 02:13
请romanus老师修改～多谢！

Do you agree or disagree with the statement?

Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
All scientific discoveries should be shared among all scientists all around the world; the government and businesses should not keep any discoveries in secret.

There is a public debate today that whether all scientific discoveries researched by governments and business groups (The question didn't specify this constraint on the scientific discoveries. It simply says 'all scientific discoveries', not just those researched by governments or businesses. Of course, it's reasonable that you'd want to assume the question implies that, but I don't see this as necessary because governments and businesses can certainly buy scientific discoveries to keep for themselves. The point is: if you want to limit your discussion to something more specific than the question has asked for, you need to qualify your choice of scope clearly in the introduction. You shouldn't just jump into your own discussion without properly explaining why you think it is reasonable to talk about something that doesn't look quite like what the question was asking for.) should be shared among all scientists worldwide or not. Some people believe with (You either 'agree with' or 'believe in', but not 'believe with'.) Bhartrihari, a philosopher in the ancient India, who once said, that is “Knowledge grows when shared”, (Everything from 'Some people' up till here is ONE sentence, of which the main clause is 'Some people believe with Bhartrihari'. Everything else in this part must be dependent clauses.) and thus declaim (This means 'to claim in an oratorical manner e.g. in formal public speech'. It doesn't just mean exactly the same thing as 'claim'.) that sharing the knowledge would only accelerate the development of the human society. However, considering the effects that modern scientific knowledge can cause, it is not for sure that all the usage of scientific discoveries would engender to a good and honest consequence.(So I guess this means you're disagreeing with the given opinion? Announce your overall stance clearly. It might look like too obvious a thing to do but your readers actually look for such things because these are the beacons to lead them through an essay when they have only 2 minutes to read it.)

Some high-tech discoveries are dangerous. If an evil organization (If you use 'the', it really means there is one single organization that is THE evil organization..it's quite an amusing thought, though, to imagine this one single huge organisation that is the source of all evil in the world..it might not even need to be huge, seriously..now I'm going off all over the place with my wild imaginative sarcasm.) uses them, it would be a threat to national security, so the detailed information should not become public. A particular example for this is the nuclear power; the South Korea is trying to develop this powerful weapon to realize its political ambition. Once it has been accomplished, no doubt that the nuclear weapon, manipulated by the South Korea government, would turn into a time boom (You mean, 'a time bomb'..) threatening the world peace. (I'm curious: do you really not see the irony here, not to mention the gaping hole it would make in your logical reasoning, that your point is 'governments should keep scientific discoveries secret because evil organisations might exploit them once they become public', and your example is 'an evil government is trying to exploit a scientific discovery'?) So in this case, governments which have the nuclear technology should not only keep this confidential, but also try their best to forbid South Korea from doing such research (These are really two independent actions. I don't see why they are related or why the latter is even relevant to the discussion.). Sharing all scientific discoveries indefinitely may cause unpredictable damage to the world safety.(I'll be straight-forward with these personal preferences: 1. avoid political finger-pointing in formal academic writings, unless you're writing about political finger-pointing..because you never know if your essay examiner would be an immigrant from South Korea, or a Korean drama fan who can't take an insult; 2. even if you absolutely must do political finger-pointing, I would suggest you do it anonymously – 'a certain ambitious country', for example..the reason being that the exact identity of this evil government is actually not important to this discussion at all..)

Additionally, it breaks the laws of the market (What do you mean by 'laws of the market'? What market? What kind of laws? There are myriad 'laws' that can be relevant to any market – food safety regulations, for example, would be a law of the market in the most generic sense. Try explaining to yourself what 市场法则/市场规律 means exactly in Chinese. You'd probably realise how vague these expressions really are yet you think you know what they actually mean.). For some business corporations, their intention is making profits. If the government forces them into sharing the scientific information disinterested (I don't get what this word is doing here or what it intends to express. It's not even an adverb so it really only makes the whole sentence ungrammatical.), it will harm their rights and interests, and dampen their enthusiasm. Furthermore, communism in scientific discoveries attracts some free-riders, who only take advantage of others’ achievement but do not make any contribution. In this way, science institutions are not well encouraged, because their ownerships are not well protected (LOL. Do you have evidence for this, and the previous sentence? If you ever want to enter a proper, serious scientific institution and make a living out of it as a career, you won't be able to do it by free-riding. Of course economic prospects are important too, and good researchers will take those into consideration, but if your argument is about free-riding on scientific discoveries, then the scientific community is in fact self-regulating because, well, these are smart people. They themselves would want to protect their own interests, first and foremost. So the serious scientific community collectively shuns free-riders. They get their quick money, maybe, but they'll lose their prospects. Now, with all that said, the case with the scientific community in China is quite different, and the picture of researchers working for real businesses is quite different too, so I don't blame you for thinking that free sharing would only encourage free-rides and harm people's enthusiasm..But yeah, this goes back to my earlier point about how your must qualify your discussion's scope if you're limiting it to something more specific than the question itself. In this paragraph particularly you see how scientific discoveries done in governments and businesses are pretty much different operations from scientific discoveries done in, say, universities and research labs.). So we should regulate the science technology market under economic rules.

Although knowledge has no boundaries and sharing all scientific discoveries can promote the development in the technology realm, we should also notice the potential menace to the national security and side-effect to the business market. As some modern technologies are double-edge swords, powerful knowledge should not be shared easily, and only the qualified people can access to them. For some profitable scientific discoveries, we should show respect to the researchers, and allow them to trade their technique under the government regulation.(Now this, is completely NOT the point the question intends you to discuss. The question specifically asks for your opinion on governments and businesses keeping scientific discoveries SECRET, like KFC's or Coca-Cola's secret recipes. Trading shouldn't even come into this picture, because if you allow trading then it's just the same as sharing, albeit with a price.)

总结：

This is very well executed in terms of language use. And good topic points, too. But the actual argumentation is vague, tangential and, rather naïve, at times..Now naivety is not really a problem here since no one would expect you to be very profound or well-informed, but it's a shame that your discussion is almost completely tangential – it seems really intelligent and relevant to the question given, but it's always not really right to the point.

芥菜粽UID：3344214

亲你可以在一楼编辑文档把作业贴出来

classgrassUID：2986786

2.13作业

classgrassUID：2986786

芥菜粽 发表于 2013-2-13 18:55
亲你可以在一楼编辑文档把作业贴出来

晕，我还真不太会用论坛里的这个功能...我今天的作文试一试。

daigualuUID：3401736

个人拙见，请参考

lsy0123UID：3410935

有什么问题再商量哈。谢谢你给的意见，我下次会多加注意。

ヤ.魔ポ☆.UID：3381952

改好了~

东南有雪UID：3395688

已改

lsy0123UID：3410935

fighting

秋雨荆州UID：2903781