Issue138

galaxysongUID: 152834

Issue 138
"Only through mistakes can there be discovery or progress."

I principally agree that mistakes are nearly inevitable yet worthy for discovery or progress. However, I don't hold the same idea as the speaker's which amounts to assertion that mistake is the only exclusive way to achieve discovery or progress, falsely overlooking the crucial effect of knowledge and reasoning.

A brief review of human history can manifest the indispensable contribute of "trial and error" method to progresses in every field, which is especially true in inventions and sciences. An outstanding example coming to mind is Thomas Edison, one of greatest inventors, whose success was built on persistent keeping trials after one failure and another. Edison was not a learned scientist and depended on his experiments very much. To find a new material for highly durable while considerably economical light bulb, he even tried until success over two thousand kinds available to him, including mustache of a friend of his, all of which, except the last one, of course, were mistaken choices. The life of Edison, as well as numerous scientists, was fraught of mistakes which helped him to narrow his search zone for the final discovery.

The function of "trial and error", where the merit of mistake rests, is quite understandable. When we face a new problem in our way to a discovery or progress, we usual find ourselves equipped with insufficient knowledge to deal with it. Next to the most desirable answer to "what we can do with it", answers to "what we cannot do with it" are also greatly useful and helpful. As Edison puts when his experiment failed again, "at least I know now one more material that can't be used in light bulbs." By precluding possible but factually wrong answers one by one, tenacious trials make the only right one remain to be found at last.

But in most cases the efficiency of "trial and error" method alone is far less favorable in comparison with that of the other powerful method. Given enough knowledge and reasoning, Edison might have succeeded after substantially fewer experiments under the guidance of the logical method. A concordant marriage between knowledge and reasoning can draw a simple but reliable map for our exploration on the basis of what we have already known and can deduce. In other words, it expands and extends our kens, preparing for attempts after it. It usually works as effectively yet more efficiently as a substitute for the "trial and error" method. In fact, this logical approach is so prevailing in education system that many students get an illusion that they can accomplish discoveries and progresses sheerly with the aid of logic tools, avoiding mistakes at all.

On balance, nevertheless, a combination of the two methods has proved its power surpasses either method alone. The nation-wide reform in China, for instance, began with a purely theoretical debate on the ultimate criterion for testing truth, which then ignited a outbreak of thoughts reflecting on the old economic and politic systems, leading to new theories calling for a more practical and rational mechanism. In light of these pioneering logical suggestions, a spark of Market Economy, as a trial, came reality in a little fishing village, which now has grown into a world-famous city named Shenzhen. Shortly after the success experiment in Shenzhen, a series of significant reforms started progressing step by step. Mistakes are frequent but under control. Lessons learnt from them enrich the theories, which in turn direct further trials. In this way, China has taken on a nice spiral, advancing raptly and steadily.

To sum up, mistakes are part and parcel of "trial and error" approach which has contributed invaluably to human's discoveries and progresses, while theory and reasoning method is of equal importance. In the final analysis, it's clearly better off to apply the both to express most propelling power.

imongUID: 140258

However, I don't hold the same idea as the speaker's which amounts to assertion that mistake is the only exclusive way to achieve discovery or progress, falsely overlooking the crucial effect of knowledge and reasoning.

as的用法？ assertion？（这个恐怕要打pp了）？ overlook-->overlooking 很不舒服。

这句话整个给了我一棒锤。不过后面还不错。第二段最好能提到Mistake和progress的关系的分析，如果打算分开说的话第二段就没必要写那么长。后面两个段落都不错，不过展开的水平离6分还差一点。总体上至少是一篇5分的文章。

第三段让我想起来一句话：When you have eliminated all the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be truth.

注意每段之间空一行，要不然看起来很费劲。这次是我改的。

Edison的例子这么快就用上了？:D 剩下四道题的去发表一下意见吧。

galaxysongUID: 152834

However, I don't hold the same idea as the speaker's (这里省掉了idea) which amounts to assertion
idea不是assertion，所以我才说amounts to。
overlooking是很不对劲，我以后会注意范文里有没有更合适的用法。
第二段主要围绕例子，恐怕很难一下子联系到progress。discovery姑且代表了。
“When you have eliminated all the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be truth.”让我想起老侦探金田（好像是学生侦探金田一的爷爷）。他就曾用排除法解决了一个匪夷所思的案子。当然，还由新中国的名侦探解决的小偷拿机密文件当草纸上厕所的案子。

imongUID: 140258

那个assertion：

如果是名词，前面加the
如果是动词，应该是assert

因此，如果我的感觉没有错，就是该打pp :D

galaxysongUID: 152834

该加的是an不是the吧？