Issue184【07-10G Superstar大帖】第十二次作业 by学野

学野UID: 2155973

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 598          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-6-21 17:13:02

From Einstein's theory of relativities to Mendel’s genetics theory, from game theory of Nash to the double helix of DNA theory, all these significant theories go hand in hand with the twilight of scientific history and set up a solid foundation for future science. however, is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data, as speaker asserts? In my view, it is a case-by-case situation when it comes to this question, which we cannot arbitrarily make a certain conclusion.

Admittedly, data plays a crucial role in theories' setting up. Before we make a theory, we may first collect enormous data and analyze them in a careful situation, and then based on those data as well as the internal rules of such data, can we set up a theory. After that, we have to make full use of data in future to test the validity of the original theory and then make corresponding modification and even revise them. Just as what I mentioned above, the genetics theory, set up by Mendel, was one of the famous and important discovery in biology. Before the shape of this theory, Mendel collected a myriad of data about the results of peanuts, and then made a surprising discovery that those hybrids of peanuts are in accordance with some specific laws, which is the base of the genetics theory. In this sense, when one has sufficient and accurate data, he may go further to set up a theory, a theory full of objectivity and logical explanations of phenomena.

However, if one accepts that  it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data, he may miss many chances to make a assumption and may be halted in the process of science and many other fields. Just as Einstein once said, imagination is more important than knowledge. before one sets up a theory, imagination may be involved in his minds and can further make an assumption which is somewhat fancy but to some degree can make a relatively explanations to certain phenomena. What's more, under some circumstances, data may not be accessible, and what we can obtain are just facts or phenomena, can we do nothing but to wait the data? or make full use of our knowledge and imagination even the courage to theorize? There is an example aptly answering this question. In 1838, Schwann and Schleiden, a zoologist and a botanist set up a significant theory--cell theory. which is one of the most shocking theories in 19 century’s science. This theory has no data but based on the observation through micro scope and a lot of phenomena showing the similarity of cells in organisms. After a long time observation and imaginative researches, they point out that all living organisms are composed of similar units of organization, called cells, which is the foundation of cell biology. In this meaningful theory, there is no accurate data, due to the limits of technology at that time, however, based on the proper observation and convincing hypothesis, the cell theory eventually do contribution to the development of science. With time passed by, this theory is attested to be right by many data and later researches.

To sum up, if one has access to collect sufficient and accurate data, it will definitely conduce to the foundation of a theory, however, in some cases where there is a lack of data, it is still possible and necessary for researchers to make a good use of knowledge and imagination to make an assumption and set up a theory in the end, instead of waiting for the emergence of data.

jeileeUID: 2298006

From Einstein's theory of relativities to Mendel’s genetics theory, from game theory of Nash to the double helix of DNA theory, all these significant theories go hand in hand with the twilight of scientific history and set up a solid foundation for future science. (555中文我都不一定写得出来啊5555)however, is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data, as speaker asserts? In my (point of,据说这样做是为了凑字数....)view, it is a case-by-case situation when it comes to this question, which we cannot arbitrarily make a certain conclusion.

Admittedly, data plays a crucial role in theories' setting up. Before we make a theory, we may first collect enormous data and analyze them in a careful situation, and then based on those data(based on which,换个句式啵) as well as the internal rules of such data, can we set up a theory. After that, we have to make full use of data in future to test the validity of the original theory and then make corresponding modification and even revise them. Just as what I mentioned above, the genetics theory, set up by Mendel, was one of the famous and important discovery in biology. Before the shape of this theory, Mendel collected a myriad of data about the results of peanuts, and then made a surprising discovery that those hybrids of peanuts are in accordance with some specific laws, which is the base of the genetics theory. In this sense, when one has sufficient and accurate data, he may go further to set up a theory, a theory(that is) full of objectivity and logical explanations of phenomena.

However, if one accepts that  it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data, he may miss many chances to make a(an) assumption and may be halted in the process of science and many other fields. Just as Einstein once said, imagination is more important than knowledge. before one sets up(重复了好多次,要不要换个说法呢?比如draw, bring forward) a theory, imagination may be involved in his minds and can further (help to)make an assumption which is somewhat fancy but to some degree can make a relatively explanations to certain phenomena. What's more, under some circumstances, data may not be accessible, and what we can obtain are just facts or phenomena, can we do nothing but to wait the data? or make full use of our knowledge and imagination even the courage to theorize? There is an example aptly answering(answers) this question. In 1838, Schwann and Schleiden, a zoologist and a botanist set up a significant theory--cell theory. which is one of the most shocking theories in 19 century’s science. This theory has no data but based on the observation through micro scope and a lot of phenomena showing the similarity of cells in organisms. After a long time observation and imaginative researches, they point out that all living organisms are composed of similar units of organization, called cells, which is the foundation of cell biology. In this meaningful theory, there is no accurate data, due to the limits of technology at that time, however, based on the proper observation and convincing hypothesis, the cell theory eventually do contribution to the development of science. With time passed by, this theory is attested to be right by many data and later researches.(其实...我觉得data不仅有数据的意思,还可解释成资料.如果这样解释的话,你的例子就不成立了.题目主要想阐明的应该是现实依据和空想的区别,而不单只是有没有确切的数据,应该重点与阐述想象的重要性.不过这题我没写过,只是个人看法....)

To sum up, if one has access to collect sufficient and accurate data, it will definitely conduce to the foundation of a theory, however, in some cases where there is a lack of data, it is still possible and necessary for researchers to make a good use of knowledge and imagination to make an assumption and set up a theory in the end, instead of waiting for the emergence of data.
BODY....只有两段....这个....还没遇到过呢....
我觉得呢~LZ的论述方法不是很到位,不过例子举得很好~但是正如我刚提到的,LZ的例子有点危险,特别是当你把重心都放在例子上时,就非常可能翻船了.因为我个人是属于论证多,例子少的,所以我建议楼主多点论证免得例子出现差错.同时,我认为作文I的例子不应该过长,不然看起来就像记叙文了.其实LZ的例子简单概括的话2\3句就行了,可以将精力放在其他例子上,多举些例子也会减少风险.若是单一的例子叙述多了,会让人觉得文章的逻辑性不强,太苍白~个人看法....
不过....FF啊.......你写得很好啊555555最关键的还是限时的~!!!!!不过我还是建议你多点论证,多掰出一段凑成经典的三段式老美看着爽,例子举得非常好~不过用概括性的比较好,多举几个~
我要像FF学习~!以后经常去骚扰你~多踩你的文文然后怂恿你踩我的文文~
加油~!

[ 本帖最后由 jeilee 于 2007-6-21 18:11 编辑 ]

achillisharryUID: 2277269

laura001UID: 2295927

写的不错　:) 进步还是很大哦，鼓励下

学野UID: 2155973

谢谢ls各位的鼓励~~~~~~~~
感谢jeliee, 等着偶去踩你的文哈~
换句式其实我当然想啊，只是语法不过关，怕写错，多向你学习！
这个题其实关键在theory,data的界定了，界定不同结果就不同啊，我应该在开始先define下data的范围是不是会好些？至于例子主要是想到的不多就把仅有的好好写写
set up重复多次实在是本人词汇贫乏。。汗一个，由于限时也不费脑筋去想同义词了，感谢jeilee的建议阿，词汇好丰富~
不知道最近怎么搞得，body都写得只有两段。。。。以后一定注意~