Issue184，BT椰树一棵，写得很差，做靶子用

needleUID: 158900

Issue184: 505 words
It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.

提纲：
1．        部分同意，分范围：自然学科是，人文学科并非如此
2．        自然学科
3．        人文学科
4．        总结

How important are the data to a theory? Whether is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data? As far as I am concerned, it is not a simple question with a single answer. As for the natural science fields, to theorize in lack of data is a severe mistake; but as for the humanities fields, it is not as same.

Firstly, it is necessary for one studying in natural science to theorize after the data are available. As we all know, natural science comprises of studies involved in the physical world and phenomena, which usually be achieved in a precise process: observe, record, think, design experiments, gather experimental results, and then theorize. For instance, the prominent botanist Mendel had cultivated pea plants for more than 8 years and collected affluent information of kinds of crossbred peas before he advanced his theory of the heredity, which is regarded the foundation of the modern genetics. Any theory in natural science needs data to support its credibility, and otherwise, it could only be called a postulation rather than an exact law of the nature until it is testified by data later. Or even it is nothing but a hasty and incorrect conclusion. For example, before the great Renaissance, the whole Europe was controlled under Aristotle's "theories", such as the geocentricism, which were theorized based on merely on Aristotle’s thoughts and granted imagination without any data support at his time. However, such a grave mistake had been ultimately revealed and deserted, no matter how the Church hampered the mass to access the truth advanced by scientists like Copernicus and Bruno with buttress of ample data. Therefore, to establish a theory of natural science, data should be collected before if one does not want to make ridiculous mistakes and draw ungrounded conclusions.

Secondly, as for the humanities fields, such as philosophy, social science, literature and art, data are not so significant as they are in natural science fields because data are no longer the tool to support and testify them. Such a distinctive point comes from the differences between the two kinds of science. Compared with natural science, humanities care for the human aspects of the world, so their subjects always are neither material nor realistic, for example, the correlations between people living in different social hierarchies and the developments of a society. Theories in these fields are propounded as summaries of the past or a foretelling for the future., or just evanescent muses. As illustrations, philosophers can advance a theory by deducting or thinking in his/her mind only without any data. And also, artists can summarize his/her experience and establish theories with an absence of any data. One can attack the logical flaws in philosophers' works and unpractical points in artists' theories, but he/she cannot prove they are wrong just because their thoughts are lack of data.

In conclusion, it is a confused conception that to theorize before one has data is surely a grave mistake. Natural science and humanities are so different that they should be taken into consideration respectively. Natural scientists should hold a serious attitude to the essential work of gathering available data, only based on which, they can draw conclusions and even advance theories. But scientists in humanities fields should not be confined in the necessity of data. They should open their mind and theorize based on their thoughts and observations. （564）


我实在太困了……改不动了……我知道写得很差……还是来丢丢脸吧！

明早上我自己也继续改之。

benben429UID: 157778

太晚了，顶一下睡觉去了。

你也快休息吧，明天来仔细看。。。。

needleUID: 158900

谢谢benben429...go to bed now.

lovebrianUID: 157127

Issue184: 505 words
It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.

提纲：
1． 部分同意，分范围：自然学科是，人文学科并非如此
2． 自然学科
3． 人文学科感觉少个body
4． 总结

How important are the data to a theory? Whetherwhether不要可以吗？ is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data? As far as I am concerned, it is not a simple question with a single answer. As for the natural science fields, to theorize in lack of data is a severe mistake; but as for the humanities fields, it is not as same.

Firstly, it is necessary for one studying in natural science to theorize after the data are available. As we all know, natural science comprises of studies involved in the physical world and phenomena, which usually be achieved in a precise process: observe, record, think, design experiments, gather experimental results, and then theorize. For instance, the prominent botanist Mendel had cultivated pea plants for more than 8 years and collected affluent information of kinds of crossbred peas before he advanced his theory of the heredity, which is regarded the foundation of the modern genetics. Any theory in natural science needs data to support its credibility, and otherwise, it could only be called a postulation rather than an exact law of the nature until it is testified by data later. Or even it is nothing but a hasty and incorrect conclusion. For example, before the great Renaissance, the whole Europe was controlled under Aristotle's "theories", such as the geocentricism, which were theorized based on merely on Aristotle’s thoughts and granted imagination without any data support at his time. However, such a grave mistake had been ultimately revealed and deserted, no matter how the Church hampered the mass to access the truth advanced by scientists like Copernicus and Bruno with buttress of ample data. Therefore, to establish a theory of natural science, data should be collected before if one does not want to make ridiculous mistakes and draw ungrounded conclusions.这不挺好的吗？有正有反。问题最好写得再to the point一些：有了数据，到底怎么个好法；没有数据到底怎么不行

Secondly, as for the humanities fields, such as philosophy, social science, literature and art, data are not so significant as they are in natural science fields because data are no longer the indispensable tool to support and testify them. Such a distinctive point comes from the differences between the two kinds of science. Compared with natural science, humanities care for the human aspects of the world, so their subjects always are neither material nor realistic, for example, the correlations between people living in different social hierarchies and the developments of a society. Theories in these fields are propounded as summaries of the past or a foretelling for the future., or just evanescent muses. As illustrations, philosophers can advance a theory by deducting or thinking in his/her mind only without any data. And also, artists can summarize his/her experience and establish theories with an absence of any data. One can attack the logical flaws in philosophers' works and unpractical points in artists' theories, but he/she cannot prove they are wrong just because their thoughts are lack of data.我感觉这样写会引起一些混乱~~
看看我的思路把：body1就那样写 body2写这些学科数据的不必要性，单纯的就是不必要也可以建立理论，写一下原因 然后body3写为什么两者一个需要数据一个不需要呢？展开来说一下两者的不同点~~这样写会不会更清晰一些呢？嗬嗬

In conclusion, it is a confused conception that to theorize before one has data is surely a grave mistake. Natural science and humanities are so different that they should be taken into consideration respectively. Natural scientists should hold a serious attitude to the essential work of gathering available data, only based on which, they can draw conclusions and even advance theories. But scientists in humanities fields should not be confined in the necessity of data. They should open their mind and theorize based on their thoughts and observations. （564）结尾好长啊~大可以再弄个body~~然后缩一下结尾


我实在太困了……改不动了……我知道写得很差……还是来丢丢脸吧！开始调整作息时间吧！！ :cool:

明早上我自己也继续改之。没有你想得那么糟~呵呵~还是可以的

fishergirlUID: 152325

老睡得这么晚可不好，该调整一下生物钟了：）

dezhiUID: 156141

不要睡的太晚了，注意身体！

needleUID: 158900

谢谢各位~~~~以前老贪玩，所以现在得要“还债”……

TO:狒狒

的确是少一个body
本来列提纲的时候是基本上想按照你说的那么写的，但是发现是再不知道body3怎么写，于是就写了那么一个冗长的结尾段……

唉！昨晚上真的很打击信心的说

paisleyUID: 64183

我来提点建议。

有个论点你立错了。可能因为你自己是学理工科的，所以对社会科学不了解。我是学社会科学的。其实社会科学也是对数据极其看重的。现在每一门社会科学里，正式训练过的学生和学者绝不会写出一篇没有数据支持的论文来。纯粹理论性、宏观大旨的文章是非常少见的，只有一个领域的翘楚才写得出。

其实我想你想说的是“艺术、人文学科（注意“学科”和“社会科学”的差异）、以及哲学”是不需要用数据来理论化的。这点我同意。给你补充一下，这些学科/领域，除了哲学以外（哲学是所有学科的最高指导，可以高高在上不需要与具体数据打交道），因为与人的心灵密切相关，所以要为他们theorize，更多的需要对日常生活的观察、心灵的体验和凝神的思考，而不是一些枯燥的数据。

你很强，你的题目经常是我从来没见过的。呵呵：）

needleUID: 158900

谢谢paisley的指点！你说的没错……我自己写社会科学不需要数据的时候都头皮发麻……证明还是平时积累不够……

那么我分成3个部分写你看怎么样？一个，自然科学需要数据支持，人文学科中部分需要数据支持，比如经济学（这个算人文学科吗？总之不算自然科学就是了），部分不需要数据支持（文学，哲学，艺术）。

经济学的部分不知道该怎么写……我对经济一窍不通……不知道宏观的微观的到底那些需要数据支持那些不需要，需要又是怎么个需要法……

这道题是机井题，不算高频，考了3次（4月），觉得很难所以决定写掉。

我强……？汗ing
paisley没见我一天到晚的跑题……:)