Issue184 【challenge yourself小组】第一次作业

infant~UID: 2242949

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 458          TIME: 01:22:40          DATE: 2008-7-24 17:37:44

中文提纲：
开头，条件肯定
一般要data来提出theory
没有data的theory是risky的
不同意的地方：１）有些学科是先theorize再用data进行证明
　　　　　　　２）过分追求的data


Is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data? I agree with the speaker that the general process of theorizing is based on sufficient data in order to avoid any undesired results. While the assertion has merits, not all pursuits for data are legitimate.

Common sense informs us that any sound theory must come out by the support some data-regardless of the amount of the data. Consider the Newtonian physics. Only after hundreds of trial and experiment to collect sufficient data did the three laws of nature finally came into being. It attributes to the foregoing painstaking work and ample data that this theory is not overthrown until today. Or consider the theory of continents drift. It was inspired by an unmeant glance of the map; however, vast amount of data was explored and sought before it was finally theorized.

I agree with the speaker's assertion insofar as theorize without any data can be meaningless and even dangerous. This assertion finds its support when considering the ultimate goal of theorizing: to simplify a chain of empirical facts with a common rule that can be easily understood and applied in related events. Query whether a theory can be called theory if it has no supporting data. Even if, in any events, we admit that it is a theory, the so-called theory is not conducive to a better understanding of the empirical world that we are engaged in. Actually, a theorizing process with no fundamental data risks our approach toward a clarified truth. For instance, the earth-centered Universe that was created by distant ancient ancestors stood in the way of scientists’ revolutionary proposal that the Sun is the real center.

Despites the merits of the speaker's claim, I find it presumptuous in two important respects. On one hand, there are certain academic areas where theory is tested after rather than before it is proposed. Linguistics may serve as an apt illustration. Every new meaning of single word in a foreign language is guessed through ways such as body language, facial language in the first place, and then proved or revised in later communication. Thus truth can be reached other than the process of data to theory. On the other hand, with a zeal for more data, we may drive too far away in attaining data before theorizing. Also take the Newtonian physics as an example, endless data could be piled up if Newton was ready to pursue all the available information he could get. In that event, the unprecedented theory could be hatching at present.

In sum, a certain amount of data is important and necessary to make a theory in general; however, over amount of data can lead us to the opposite direction toward reaching the truth.

[ 本帖最后由 infant~ 于 2008-7-24 02:25 编辑 ]

qilluraUID: 2186638

好多生词－ － 看不懂:eek:

qilluraUID: 2186638

Is it agrave mistake to theorize before one has data? I agree with the speaker thatthe general process of theorizing is based on sufficient data in order to avoidany undesired results. While the assertion has merits, not all pursuits fordata are legitimate.Common sense informsus that any sound theory must come out by the support ofsome data-regardless of the amount of it.Consider the Newtonian Mechanics. Only afterhundreds of trials and experiments to collect sufficient data did the three laws of naturefinally come(前面有did了) intobeing. It attributes to the foregoing painstaking work and ample data that thistheory is not overthrown until today. Or consider the theory of continentsdrift. It was inspired by an unmeant glance of the map; however, vast amount ofdata was explored and sought before it was finally theorized. I agree with thespeaker's assertion insofar as theorize without any data can be meaningless andeven dangerous. This assertion finds its support when considering the ultimategoal of theorizing: to simplify a chain of empirical facts with a common rulethat can be easily understood and applied in related events. Query whether atheory can be called theory if it has no supporting data（这一句语法对么？query不知道怎么用）. Even if, in any events, we admitthat it is a theory, the so-called theory is not conducive to a betterunderstanding of the empirical world that we are engaged in. Actually, atheorizing process with no fundamental data risks our approach toward aclarified truth. For instance, the earth-centered Universe that was created bydistant ancient ancestors stood in the way of scientists’ revolutionaryproposal that the Sun is the real center. Despites the meritsof the speaker's claim, I find it presumptuous in two important respects. Onone hand, there are certain academic areas where theory is tested after ratherthan before it is proposed. Linguistics may serve as an apt illustration. Everynew meaning of single word in a foreign language is guessed through ways suchas body language, facial language in the first place, and then proved orrevised in later communication. Thus truth can be reached other than theprocess of data to theory. On the other hand, with a zeal for more data, we maydrive too far away in attaining data before theorizing. Also take the Newtonianphysics as an example: endless data could bepiled up if Newton was ready to pursue all the available information he couldget. In that event, the unprecedented theory could be hatching at present.（on one/the other hand是讲同一件事的不同理由，这里不好用把，最后一句怪怪的这个at present…）In sum, a certainamount of data is important and necessary to make a theory in general; however,over amount of data can lead us to the opposite direction toward reaching thetruth.


文章内容大赞小否，结构上比较清晰：
1。开头：属于传说中的“让步＋表明立场”型
2。以牛顿力学为例，支持issue
3。从因果上解释issue
4。小负：2种情况不符合issue
5。总结：简短，是第一段的重写

评价：
1。我不太喜欢第三段，因为没有例子，全是论述没有例子。怎么说呢？没有例子的论述就像听家长给你讲道理一样，听了一个小时最后发现什么都不记得- - 这里的一个例子也不是很好，其实地心说到日心说应该是科学发展的自然过程，就像光的波粒二像性（nod）一样，都是一点一点发展积累出来，并不是地心说阻挡了日心说的发展。。。还有再怎么说地心说也不至于distant ancient ancestors这...

2。第4段里面第二点我觉的很奇怪：过分追求data会影响theorize 这个好像和issue不矛盾嘛。。。不知道，感觉怪怪的。。。

3。开头结尾太短拉，多凑点字数嘛～

4。生词太多了。。。看着累。。。

咩～

[ 本帖最后由 qillura 于 2008-7-24 22:22 编辑 ]

infant~UID: 2242949

1.其实我是看完了北美范文之后，好像都有一些学术性的空话，使文章显得专业一些;d: ，所以就想学一下来着。。。
至于后面的例子，我觉得没有任何一个例子能够很好的适用于某个场合，只需要取其一个方面为我所用就可以了吧。。然后那个distant ancient ancestors我只是想夸张一下而已。。。呵呵　好像是说得太远了　嘿嘿
2.这个。。。论点应该是没有问题的，因为是直接用的北美范文的观点(仅此一个观点！而且是自己改写的，应该不算抄袭吧？:confused: )
3.开头结尾嘛，要简短有力，也要考虑到时间VS字数的问题么^^
4.生词@@...看红宝去！

qilluraUID: 2186638

不知道为什么 从word考过来就着个样子－ －

原帖由 qillura 于 2008-7-24 21:32 发表
Is it agrave mistake to theorize before one has data? I agree with the speaker thatthe general process of theorizing is based on sufficient data in order to avoidany undesired results. While the  ...

linyunfUID: 2405027

整体很好啊，水平不错的。大致的错误2楼指出了，我做点我的补充吧。Is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data? I agree with the speaker that the general process of theorizing is based on sufficient data in order to avoid any undesired results. While the assertion has merits, not all pursuits for data are legitimate.Common sense informs us that any sound theory must come out by the support some data-regardless of the amount of the data. Consider the Newtonian physics. Only after hundreds of trial and experiment to collect sufficient data did the three laws of nature finally came into being. It attributes to the foregoing painstaking work and ample data that this theory is not overthrown until today. Or consider the theory of continents drift. It was inspired by an unmeant glance of the map; however, vast amount of data was explored and sought before it was finally theorized.I agree with the speaker's assertion insofar as theorize without any data can be meaningless and even dangerous. This assertion finds its support when considering the ultimate goal of theorizing: to simplify a chain of empirical facts with a common rule that can be easily understood and applied in related events. Query whether a theory can be called theory if it has no supporting data. Even if, in any events, we admit that it is a theory, the so-called theory is not conducive to a better understanding of the empirical world that we are engaged in. Actually, a theorizing process with no fundamental data risks our approach toward a clarified truth. For instance, the earth-centered Universe that was created by distant ancient ancestors stood in the way of scientists’ revolutionary proposal that the Sun is the real center. Despites the merits of the speaker's claim, I find it presumptuous in two important respects. On one hand, there are certain academic areas where theory is tested after rather than before it is proposed. Linguistics may serve as an apt illustration. Every new meaning of single word in a foreign language is guessed through ways such as body language, facial language in the first place, and then proved or revised in later communication. Thus truth can be reached other than the process of data to theory. On the other hand, with a zeal for more data, we may drive too far away in attaining data before theorizing. Also take the Newtonian physics as an example, endless data could be piled up if Newton was ready to pursue all the available information he could get. In that event, the unprecedented theory could (still) behatching at present.(这里假设牛顿拿了n多的数据，最好再说他迟迟不下结论，这样才支持你的论点)

In sum, a certain amount of data is important and necessary to make a theory in general; however, over amount of data can lead us to the opposite direction toward reaching the truth（这里的反面只写了你的第二部分，不完整，最好把art也总结下）.还有，引用范文太多了。

[ 本帖最后由 linyunf 于 2008-7-25 11:04 编辑 ]