issue4[0806GRE奋斗小组]寒假集训1月21日作业

shalomrainUID: 2404234

The argument stands on the philosophical side that any field of study, wishing to attain great progress, need use the knowledge and experience from other fields for reference, especially nowadays. The advance of a study field however, is ultimately determined by its own development of some key factors of study, no matter how strong the support from other study fields is. And we should recognize that some basic study fields and subjects rarely get illumination from other derivative subjects. That is to say, the value of mutual complementarity of different study fields deserves our affirmation rather than emphasizing with out measure.  

It is true that the study of most fields can not easily go without the support of the knowledge and technology from other study fields, especially in modern times when the multidisciplinary cross and cooperation has become more and more common. For example, if archaeologists want to make clear the mystery hiding in a relic, they have to appeal to the knowledge and technology from history, geography, chemistry and physics and so on. And results of other areas are usually contributed to the improvement of a certain creation in a field. Radioactivity is the starting point for cancer treatment, for the dating techniques used on ancient objects, rocks and the universe, and for molecular biology and modem genetics; it is also the source of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb.


However, whether the study of a field can attain remarkable breakthrough and advance mainly rests on its own level of efforts and study. We know that the essential factors determining the development of one study field include people of study, funds and facilities. None of them could be absent. Lack of any of them will result the stagnation of study, even though there is abundance of knowledge and experience which can be use for reference.

What is more, as to the study of some fields there is little, or even none, knowledge and experience that could be consulted, especially to some basic fields. On one hand, the knowledge of some fields is use as the basic study tool, like mathematics. Yet the study results from other fields can rarely lend helpful theories and measures to these basic fields. On the other hand, the thinking of some basic fields can indicate the study in many other fields. For example the philosophical ideas nearly benefit the study of all fields.

The view of the argument is sound since any study field could not develop without referring the knowledge and experience from other fields. But if there is not its own development of some key factors of study, the study of the field would not gain outstanding advance ultimately, granted that the support from other study fields is stable. Meanwhile the derivative subjects rarely lend an illumination to some basic study fields. In a word, we should see the value of multidisciplinary interaction but we should not excessively accent the function of the knowledge and experience from outsiders. That is, we should not commit the fallacy of putting the cart before the horse.