Issue9 专业化Vs复合化，边缘化；涉及到判断标准

dezhiUID: 156141

Issue9 专业化Vs复合化，边缘化；涉及到判断标准
------摘要------
作者：dezhi    共用时间：45分1秒     540 words
从2004年2月16日18时36分到2004年2月16日19时45分
------题目------
Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use.
------提纲-----
Position:Disagree
1、反驳“专业化会带来更少的观众”：学科专业化并不表明懂得它的人就很少，这与学科的性质有关，一些自然科学涉及专深的理论，因此普通人很难理解；而一些社会科学方面的研究，关注的是与人民生活息息相关的社会现象，它的专业化反而会吸引更多的人，比如对人口问题的研究
2、没必要：不是说是否reach a wider audience 是评价有用无用的标志，而在于思想家，科学家，艺术家的ideas 都是不能reach wide audience的，但是他们的ideas对于相应领域的发展，对于社会的进步都是十分重要的。或许这个才是评价其有用性的标志。
3、不可能：一个十分专业的领域 有wide audience，这是不可能的。由学者教？对学者讲，费时费力费人；对人们来说，他们能理解这些高深的理论吗？
------正文------
The speaker asserts that the specialization of academic disciplines in recent years has kept scholars' ideas from being understood by more people, which finally lead to their little usage. I disagree with the speaker, for the simple reason that there are faults in the cause-and-effect reasoning.

First of all, the specialization of academic disciplines does not necessary result in a narrow audience of scholars' ideas. It depends on the nature of disciplines. As we know, the academic disciplines can be divided into two classes: the scientific disciplines and the social ones. On the one hand, as to scientific area, it is necessary to make further researches to uncover more mysterious phenomenon of the world, going more and more specialized, which results in a narrow audience. On the other hand, concerning about the social disciplines, the specialization helps to reach a wider audience, as their further study into the social problems attract attentions from more people. The problem of population is a case in point. It has been studied futher since the last century, and more and more people became aware of it, which has immensely advanced our living environment. As a result, we ought not to simply come to the conclusion that specialization would surely lead to a narrow audience.

Secondly, there is no need for scholars in some scientific research areas to make their ideas known by a wider audience. The standard of judging scholars' ideas is not the number of audience who understand the content, but their contribution to other ideas, the society or its people, direct or indirect. As far as the scientists themselves concerned, if some idea or theory can form the foundation of other theories or enlighten the inspiration or other experts, it is surely considered to be useful, though it may not be known to more ordinary people. As to ordinary people, to know the fundamental principles or mechanism of the scholars' ideas is a waste of time, for what they concern about is just how to use them. Take the well-known system software Windows for instance. There are so many people all around the world who use this excellent program everyday, but few of them know how it works. However, without a wider audience, this software is never of little use. In a word, to make scholars' ideas known to more is not necessary indeed.

Furthermore, it is almost impossible for both the scholars and the public to make abstruse ideas understood by more ordinary people. To achieve this goal, the scholars are required to teach ordinary people their ideas or theories which are difficult to learn. Nevertheless, this would not do people any good while wasting much of the scholars' time in further research. Considering the audience, are they wise enough to absorb ideas from different experts which are hard to learn? Do they have time to spend time on it? So it is beyond their ability to understand these ideas.

To sum up, there is no need for scholars to concern about the number of audience. Whether their ideas are useful depends on their contributions to other scientific fields and the society. Even if they reach only a narrow audience sometimes, they are greatly cherished by the society.

DriverEntryUID: 143979

Issue9 专业化Vs复合化，边缘化；涉及到判断标准
------摘要------
作者：dezhi 共用时间：45分1秒 540 words
从2004年2月16日18时36分到2004年2月16日19时45分
------题目------
Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use.
------提纲-----
Position  disagree
1、反驳“专业化会带来更少的观众”：学科专业化并不表明懂得它的人就很少，这与学科的性质有关，一些自然科学涉及专深的理论，因此普通人很难理解；而一些社会科学方面的研究，关注的是与人民生活息息相关的社会现象，它的专业化反而会吸引更多的人，比如对人口问题的研究
2、没必要：不是说是否reach a wider audience 是评价有用无用的标志，而在于思想家，科学家，艺术家的ideas 都是不能reach wide audience的，但是他们的ideas对于相应领域的发展，对于社会的进步都是十分重要的。或许这个才是评价其有用性的标志。
3、不可能：一个十分专业的领域 有wide audience，这是不可能的。由学者教？对学者讲，费时费力费人；对人们来说，他们能理解这些高深的理论吗？
忍不住说一声：你的1和3不是自相矛盾吗？

------正文------
The speaker asserts that the specialization of academic disciplines in recent years has kept scholars' ideas from being understood by more people, which finally lead to their little usage. I disagree with the speaker, for the simple reason that there are faults in the cause-and-effect reasoning.

First of all, the specialization of academic disciplines does not necessary result in a narrow audience of scholars' ideas. It depends on the nature of disciplines. As we know, the academic disciplines can be divided into two classes: the scientific disciplines and the social ones. On the one hand, as to scientific area, it is necessary to make further researches to uncover more mysterious phenomenon of the world, going more and more specialized, which results in a narrow audience. On the other hand, concerning about the social disciplines, the specialization helps to reach a wider audience, as their further study into the social problems attract attentions from more people. The problem of population is a case in point. It has been studied futher since the last century, and more and more people became aware of it, which has immensely advanced our living environment. As a result, we ought not to simply come to the conclusion that specialization would surely lead to a narrow audience.

Secondly, there is no need for scholars in some scientific research areas to make their ideas known by a wider audience. The standard of judging scholars' ideas is not the number of audience who understand the content, but their contribution to other ideas, the society or itsITS指代谁？用THE好了 people, direct or indirect. As far as the scientists themselves concerned, if some idea or theory can form the foundation of other theories or enlighten the inspiration or other experts, it is surely considered to be useful, though it may not be known to more ordinary people. As to ordinary people, to know the fundamental principles or mechanism of the scholars' ideas is a waste of time, for what they concern about is just how to use them. Take the well-known system software Windows for instance. There are so many people all around the world who use this excellent program everyday, but few of them know how it works. However, without a wider audience, this software is never of little use. In a word, to make scholars' ideas known to more is not necessary indeed.

Furthermore, it is almost impossible for both the scholars and the public to make abstruse ideas understood by more ordinary people. 前面这句最好加个限定，在自然科学领域，否则就是和你的第2段自相矛盾了 To achieve this goal, the scholars are required to teach ordinary people their ideas or theories which are difficult to learn. 可以写科普书啊，比如STEPHEN HAWKING的《时间简史》这本书 Nevertheless, this would not do people any good这个地方太绝对了，至少可以激起青年学习科学的兴趣 while wasting much of the scholars' time in further research. Considering the audience, are they wise enough to absorb ideas from different experts which are hard to learn? Do they have time to spend time on it? So it is beyond their ability to understand these ideas.也许普通群众中有一些天才儿童呢？

To sum up, there is no need for scholars to concern about the number of audience. Whether their ideas are useful depends on their contributions to other scientific fields and the society. Even if they reach only a narrow audience sometimes, they are greatly cherished by the society.

总的来说还不错，从文字到论证。缺点在上面都指出来了。好象比以前进步了。加油！

dezhiUID: 156141

谢谢DriverEntry！
你是第一个给我改作文的人，心中的感激呀~~~~~
你说的有道理，body1和body3有些矛盾，应该在body3中加以限定。
我发现我经常说话太绝对，faint~~

我现在已经更多的关注文章结构和思路展开了，但还不行
另外，给其他几个牛人改作文的时候，比如九月爱上乒乓球，我发现我的语言也差一截呢，短时间内不可能有质的飞跃，不过我一直在努力:)

dezhiUID: 156141

原来好像fishergirl写过这篇文章，我还帮忙看过
没想到轮到自己写时，才发现这个题目真不知道从哪里下手为好
磨蹭了很长时间，还是写不出提纲来，好不容易挤出来一份，

晚上吃饭前上论坛上看了一篇昨天陈晓萌发的关于这个题目的讨论，发现自己的提纲好像有问题，所以就没有敢轻易动笔写。

尤其是feier521的提纲，我觉得他的“没必要；不可能”这个论证思路很好，我当时做提纲时就没有想到，所以我把他的这两点改成了我提纲的后两点。

其实对这个题目的理解我还有不少疑问

dezhiUID: 156141

先说一下我的分析思路：
首先是因果逻辑的线路
　　A                                B                               C
学科专业化－＞能理解观点的人很少－＞观点没用

我原来的提纲如下：
1、B->C有问题：懂得观点的人少并不意味着观点，想法就没有用，衡量其有用性的标准不太于有多少人理解他，而在于它是不有助于为社会和人民的生活做出贡献，不论是直接的还是间接的。可以举基因工程，或者冯。诺依曼的顺序结构原理
2、A->B有问题：学科专业化并表明懂得它的人少，这与学科的性质有关。一些自然科学涉及声学的理论，因此普通人很难理解；而一些社会科学方面的研究，关注的是与人民生活息息相关的社会现象，它的专业化反而会吸引更多的人，比如对人口问题的研究
3、A有问题：如今学科的专业化的同时，也产生了另一个结果，即复合化，产生了很多边缘学科，虽然它们包含众多学科于一身，更不易于被一般人理解，但却填补了空白，很有用。比如信息管理与信息系统专业，或者管理信息系统，就是为了满足企业信息化进程的需要而产生的，虽然没有多少人能真正理解它的实际运作过程，但并不能表示它没用，相反，它极大失去了企业的发展

dezhiUID: 156141

不知道原来的这份提纲有没有什么问题？
有没有跑题之嫌？
我怎么觉得我快写成Argument了？肯定有什么不对的地方吧
另外，有没有必要调整顺序？特别是1和2，因为好像有人帮我改作文时提醒过我（好像是快乐天使），要把最重要的放前面；但我觉得有时这会与思路的正常发展相违背，不知道到底怎么理解。

dezhiUID: 156141

ps:
在我参考的那个帖子里，快乐天使列了她的提纲，这里光列了她的第一点：
1、近年来的确存在学术界更加专业化的现象。

我想问一下，这种纯粹描述现象的段落，可以在GRE作文里出现吗？我发现孙远书的提纲里也有很多这样的现象，不过我觉得纯粹描述现实，不能算是一个论点，这样好吗？

xqmelissaUID: 140370

最初由 dezhi 发布
[B]ps:
在我参考的那个帖子里，快乐天使列了她的提纲，这里光列了她的第一点：
1、近年来的确存在学术界更加专业化的现象。

我想问一下，这种纯粹描述现象的段落，可以在..

以下省略...... [/B]

恩？
提我了，那我过来说一下吧：
本来要晚上给你改的，不过既然DriverEntry这个牛人下筷子了，我就不班门弄斧了
:D

闲话少说，恢复正题：
我认为没事，我当时破这个题目的时候，就是把三句话当成三个分论点来说了，不过IMONG说没问题的。

https://bbs.gter.net/showthre ... mp;highlight=ISSUE9
这是我2月份时候写的，大概是第3篇I吧，反正写的很烂，但是就是按我那个思路写的，你可以参照一下
:p

dezhiUID: 156141

谢谢快乐天使！
“把三句话当成三个分论点”，这么写可以吗？
我去看看你的文章去......

DriverEntryUID: 143979

第5楼的提纲还可以。不过你把那个“不必要，不可能”加进来后就变成前后矛盾了。估计你再吸取别人提纲时没注意整体的逻辑性，结果就有点矛盾了。下次要把自己的思路理清楚。

“把三句话当成三个分论点”，这么写可以吗？” 可以的

另外让步的问题我是这样想的：有的时候某些论题有重大让步，或者是逻辑需要，那还是放在前面好，否则的话尽量放到后面。

关于现象描述的段落：我觉得如果论题中很强调这种现象，那么可以写一下，表示确有其事。如果有其他更好的观点可以写的话，还是直接步入正题吧。

PS：偶不是牛人，爱灌水而已。：）