issue4 同主题 大家来拍啊，必回

xiliustreamUID: 205175

Is the significant advancement got only when people from other fields bring their knowledge and experience to the study? The speaker asserts so, but I only partly agree. In my view, although knowledge and experience from other fields can sometimes bring great breakthrough to the study, it must have two premises: the original field must have certain development, and the two crossed fields must have common points.

Admittedly, knowledge and experience from other fields can give different perspectives, great inspiration, new spirits, and advanced tools, therefore brings significant advancement to our study. Digging into one field for years, experts often feel short of inspiration and ideas which seem to be used out in their own perspective of study. So when a study in a certain field comes across great difficulties, perhaps they only way they can go is to turn to different directions. For supporting examples we need to look no further than Einstein's principles of relativity. After a certain period of the discovery of this principle, Einstein still could not find a proper way to express his ideas, so he turned to the mathematicians for help. At last, he successfully illustrates his ideas as an equation E=M*C*C, which was widely and convincingly accepted by the other experts. Mathematicians not only help Einstein to transform the physical ideas into mathematic expressions, but also help him to establish the principle in calculating the motion of the celestial bodies, at last render him to set up a milestone in the physical history

Moreover, some knowledge of one field can even benefit many fields. The most obvious example relates with the computer knowledge. With the help of computer, the doctor can examine patients more carefully and thoroughly; engineer can design the program more systematically and precisely; teachers can illustrate knowledge more vividly and conveniently. Nowadays, no matter we work or study, what field we are working in, we all cannot go without computer, and nearly all of the great success can attribute to the computer knowledge.

However, what we must realize is that before the reference of the outside knowledge, the original field must have certain development. After all, an individual should first try one’s best to success, and other’s help can only effect through one’s own. So is the development of one field. Although we realize the great importance of the mathematic tools bring great help to finance on the further research of microeconomics, the premise is that the finance already had certain development in macroeconomics. If one field wants to develop only with knowledge from outside, it may even lost its proper opportunity to develop its own basics.

In addition, two crossed fields, if want to infer to each other, must have common things which can connect them reasonably. These inner common things are the points from which they can get inspirations. For example, biology, medicine, and pharmacology all relate with human beings' illness: biology studies why people get illness, medicine examines how about people's illness is, and pharmacology tells people how to cure the illness. They are all steps of a same process, so they can relate systematically. But it may be ridiculer when we relate astronautics and economics together, and want to introduce one to another--totally because they almost have no relationship at all. As such relation is of no meaning, the breakthrough is also impossible.

In sum, although I admit the importance of introduction knowledge of one field to another, what I emphasize are the two premises: first, the original one should have certain help before accept outsider's help; second, the crossing two should have something common.

tz0412UID: 180794

issue4 同主题 大家来拍啊，必回

Is the significant advancement got only when people from other fields bring their knowledge and experience to the study? The speaker asserts so, but I only partly agree. In my view, although knowledge and experience from other fields can sometimes bring great breakthrough to the study, it must have two premises: the original field must have certain development, and the two crossed fields must have common points.

Admittedly, knowledge and experience from other fields can give different perspectives, great inspiration, new spirits, and advanced tools, therefore brings significant advancement to our study. Digging into one field for years, experts often feel short of inspiration and ideas which seem to be used out in their own perspective of study. So when a study in a certain field comes across great difficulties, perhaps they only way they can go is to turn to different directions. For supporting examples we need to look no further than Einstein's principles of relativity. After a certain period of the discovery of this principle, Einstein still could not find a proper way to express his ideas, so he turned to the mathematicians for help. At last, he successfully illustrates his ideas as an equation E=M*C*C, which was widely and convincingly accepted by the other experts. Mathematicians not only help Einstein to transform the physical ideas into mathematic expressions, but also help him to establish the principle in calculating the motion of the celestial bodies, at last render him to set up a milestone in the physical history
这个，楼主不是学理科的吧？ e=mc^2是光电效应，和相对论没什么关系。你这个例子和现实有点偏差了。 而且就我那篇文章里说的，广义相对论是纯理论的，还没有从实践中证明的。 好像有谁说过“广义相对论在理论上无懈可击，但是在实验上确是如此苍白”。这也就是我为什么那么写的原因了。
Moreover, some knowledge of one field can even benefit many fields. The most obvious example relates with the computer knowledge. With the help of computer, the doctor can examine patients more carefully and thoroughly; engineer can design the program more systematically and precisely; teachers can illustrate knowledge more vividly and conveniently. Nowadays, no matter we work or study, what field we are working in, we all cannot go without computer, and nearly all of the great success can attribute to the computer knowledge.
这个例子还不错

However, what we must realize is that before the reference of the outside knowledge, the original field must have certain development. After all, an individual should first try one’s best to success, and other’s help can only effect through one’s own. So is the development of one field. Although we realize the great importance of the mathematic tools bring great help to finance on the further research of microeconomics, the premise is that the finance already had certain development in macroeconomics. If one field wants to develop only with knowledge from outside, it may even lost its proper opportunity to develop its own basics.
有点怪的论断哦，题目说的是必要性，你这是在说充分性了？
In addition, two crossed fields, if want to infer to each other, must have common things which can connect them reasonably. These inner common things are the points from which they can get inspirations. For example, biology, medicine, and pharmacology all relate with human beings' illness: biology studies why people get illness, medicine examines how about people's illness is, and pharmacology tells people how to cure the illness. They are all steps of a same process, so they can relate systematically. But it may be ridiculer when we relate astronautics and economics together, and want to introduce one to another--totally because they almost have no relationship at all. As such relation is of no meaning, the breakthrough is also impossible. 这个问题，你说经济和天文学不能互相帮助，可是这并不代表题目论断不对吧？ 题目又没说一个领域需要其他所有的领域的帮助

In sum, although I admit the importance of introduction knowledge of one field to another, what I emphasize are the two premises: first, the original one should have certain help before accept outsider's help; second, the crossing two should have something common
快要考了，没时间帮你细改了，就在逻辑上说了说，加油啊。