issue4 同主题写作

tz0412UID: 180794

Issue4  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：49分11秒    568 words
从2005年6月26日10时0分到2005年6月26日10时49分
------题目------
No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study.
------正文------
The speaker asserts that all fields of study could advance significantly only when outsides bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. Generally, I agree with this statement with respect to the most of current study fields. However, I think sometimes the statement is not so accurate, especially when it comes to the purely physical science.

First of all, nowadays technology and science have been continually progressing and developed; innovations and breakthroughs in various fields are occurring everyday. Under such conditions, it is nearly impossible for a single person to simultaneously come up with the progress and new information in two or more different fields. The division of fields and areas are becoming more specific and definite; the gap and distinction among different fields are getting larger and more noticeable. Therefore, it is a trend that scholars and researchers today are becoming much more specialized than were they in the past. Yet, in today's society, when we are handling some complex problems or planning some significant programs and projects, only single experts from one field is obviously not enough and under this complicate circumstance it is imperative that all experts from various fields should come together and thus could make really advance and progress for our society. That is why I generally agree with the speaker's assertion.

Lending credence to my fundamental support of the speaker's position is the empirical evidence in pharmaceutical area. When pharmacists are trying to generate a new medicine to treat a disease, they need help from the chemist, doctors and so forth. The chemists would inform the pharmacists the chemical characteristics and possible influence on human body of certain substance and reagents, while the doctors could help test the true effect of those new medicine through clinical experiment and tell pharmacists the physical cause of the disease thus help determine the direction of pharmacists’ research efforts. Accordingly, if without the knowledge and experience of these outside experts, it is certainly not easy or even impossible for pharmacists to make genuine progress in their field.

Nevertheless, when it comes to some physical science, especially to some purely theoretical field, the speaker's assertion is way of inaccurate and not convincing. Because in almost all of the physical science, the meaningful advance and the true value of a theory must be tested by numerous experiments or by continuous discussion and theoretical speculation. Both the complex experiments and the profound theoretical speculation can only be made and conducted by the experienced experts in the relevant field and under this situation outsiders could actually do nothing helpful.

To understand this fact, we need look no further than the Einstein's general relativity. At the time when Einstein first come up with the relativity theory, no more than 10 people in the whole world could really comprehend the theory, let alone to bring their knowledge to help its advance. Therefore, in such condition, the outsiders could really dedicate nothing to the advance of this purely abstract theory.

Therefore, taking in to account of all these factors, I could finally get my own views toward the issue: although the speaker's position is generally right insofar as the most fields of study, he or she unfairly broad the extent to which the knowledge and experience of outsiders are always useful and beneficial. Actually, in purely theoretical science, the significant advances are usually made by its own experts’ efforts and endeavor.

xiliustreamUID: 205175

The speaker asserts that all fields of study could advance significantly only when outsides bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. Generally, I agree with this statement with respect to the most of current study fields. However, I think sometimes the statement is not so accurate, especially when it comes to the purely pure physical science.

First of all, nowadays technology and science have been continually progressing and developed; innovations and breakthroughs in various fields are occurring everyday. Under such conditions, it is nearly impossible for a single person to simultaneously come up with the progress and new information in two or more different fields. The division of fields and areas are becoming more specific and definite; the gap and distinction among different fields are getting larger and more noticeable. Therefore, it is a trend that scholars and researchers today are becoming much more specialized than were they in the past. Yet, in today's society, when we are handling some complex problems or planning some significant programs and projects, only single experts from one field is obviously not enough and under this complicate circumstance it is imperative that all experts from various fields should come together and thus could make really advance and progress for our society. That is why I generally agree with the speaker's assertion.
我也不敢说这一段到底扣题紧不紧，因为我也看过类似的写法，但就最后两句来说，所有领域的专家应该聚集到一起才能为社会作出重大的贡献，这就是我同意只有外领域的专家引进他们的技术才能使本领域有重大发展，这样连起来肯定不通，所以这一段最多是个引子，还没说到正题，不能得出结论。另外，我也想知道，其实这段内容根本没有提到外领域对本领域的发展，算不算偏题呢？
Lending credence to my fundamental support of the speaker's position is the empirical evidence in pharmaceutical area. When pharmacists are trying to generate a new medicine to treat a disease, they need help from the chemist, doctors and so forth. The chemists would inform the pharmacists the chemical characteristics and possible influence on human body of certain substance and reagents, while the doctors could help test the true effect of those new medicine through clinical experiment and tell pharmacists the physical cause of the disease thus help determine the direction of pharmacists’ research efforts. Accordingly, if without the knowledge and experience of these outside experts, it is certainly not easy or even impossible for pharmacists to make genuine progress in their field.
这只是说离不开外行的帮助，但好象不叫significantly advance 吧？
Nevertheless, when it comes to some physical science, especially to some purely theoretical field, the speaker's assertion is way of inaccurate and not convincing. Because in almost all of the physical science, the meaningful advance and the true value of a theory must be tested by numerous experiments or by continuous discussion and theoretical speculation. Both the complex experiments and the profound theoretical speculation can only be made and conducted by the experienced experts in the relevant field and under this situation outsiders could actually do nothing helpful.

To understand this fact, we need look no further than the Einstein's general relativity. At the time when Einstein first come up with the relativity theory, no more than 10 people in the whole world could really comprehend the theory, let alone to bring their knowledge to help its advance. Therefore, in such condition, the outsiders could really dedicate nothing to the advance of this purely abstract theory.
:O这个问题。。。其实我们是吧爱因斯坦归到物理学家里面的吧？但他的相对论其实是和宇宙的问题很大关系的，所以在实验阶段，主要是天文学家在帮他
Therefore, taking in to account of all these factors, I could finally get my own views toward the issue: although the speaker's position is generally right insofar as the most fields of study, he or she unfairly broad the extent to which the knowledge and experience of outsiders are always useful and beneficial. Actually, in purely theoretical science, the significant advances are usually made by its own experts’ efforts and endeavor.

我的 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=319079

orange83UID: 2127694

he // the，怎么一开始就打错啦？很紧张吧，:-p// speaker asserts that all fields of study could advance significantly only when outsides bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. Generally, I agree with this statement with respect to the most of current study fields. However, I think sometimes // I do not think “sometimes” is a proper word here. Perhaps you may say “the statement does not serve to all fields”// the statement is not so accurate, especially when it comes to the purely physical science.

First of all, nowadays technology and science have been continually progressing and developed; innovations and breakthroughs in various fields are occurring everyday. Under such conditions, it is nearly impossible for a single person to simultaneously come up with the progress and new information in two or more different fields. The division of fields and areas are becoming more specific and definite; //the gap and distinction among different fields are getting larger and more noticeable. I cannot agree with this statement. The fact is the gap among different fields becomes obscurer and obscurer which enables the possibility of the interdisciplinary.// Therefore, it is a trend that scholars and researchers today are becoming much more specialized than were they in the past. Yet, in today's society, when we are handling some complex problems or planning some significant programs and projects, only single experts from one field is obviously not enough and under this complicate circumstance it is imperative that all experts from various fields should come together and thus could make really advance and progress for our society. That is why I generally agree with the speaker's assertion.

Lending credence to my fundamental support of the speaker's position is the empirical evidence in pharmaceutical area. When pharmacists are trying to // “attempt to, endeavor to, make an effort to” all there phrases are better than ‘trying to’ // generate a new medicine to treat a disease, they need help from the chemist, doctors and so forth. The chemists would inform the pharmacists the chemical characteristics and possible influence on human body of certain substance and reagents, while the doctors could help test the true effect of those new medicine through clinical experiment and tell pharmacists the physical cause of the disease thus help determine the direction of pharmacists’ research efforts. Accordingly, if without the knowledge and experience of these outside experts, it is certainly not easy or even impossible for pharmacists to make genuine progress in their field.

Nevertheless, when it comes to some physical science, especially to // cancel the ‘to’// some purely theoretical field, the speaker's assertion is way of inaccurate and not convincing. // what does ‘is way of inaccurate’ mean?// Because in almost all of the physical science, the meaningful advance and the true value of a theory must be tested by numerous experiments or by continuous discussion and theoretical speculation. Both the complex experiments and the profound theoretical speculation can only be made and conducted by the experienced experts in the relevant field and under this situation outsiders could actually do nothing helpful.

To understand this fact, we need look no further than the Einstein's general relativity. At the time when Einstein first come //came// up with the relativity theory, no more than 10 people in the whole world could really comprehend the theory, let alone to bring // the phrase ‘let alone’ should be followed by a noun or V+ing// their knowledge to help its advance. Therefore, in such condition, // cancel either ‘therefore’ or ‘in such condition’// the outsiders could really dedicate nothing to the advance of this purely abstract theory.

Therefore, taking into account of all these factors, I could finally get my own views toward the issue: although the speaker's position is generally right insofar as the most fields of study, he or she unfairly broad the extent to which the knowledge and experience of outsiders are always useful and beneficial. Actually, in purely theoretical science, the significant advances are usually made by its own experts’ efforts and endeavor.

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=318860&fpage=1&highlight=
这是我的issue51，请多多指教:handshake