【文以载道之决战二月】第5周第2次作业 issue184 By 喝烧酒的裴小助

喝烧酒的裴小助UID: 2581707

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 401          TIME: 00:51:22          DATE: 2008-12-20 下午 09:57:33
     Is it true that to theorize before one has data will cause serious mistakes? Apparently,  the speaker's assertion is on the side of the common sense that theories are based on data. However, in my point of view, the speaker neglects some important facts, thus, the assertion has flaws I will discuss in two respects below.
     First of all, the speaker's assertion do have considerable merit especially when it comes to some certain fields, such as physics, chemistry and the like. Here, obviously, data are some factual information like statistics and measurements. As is known to us all, experiments may be the soul in physics and chemistry, therefore, the experimental figures are of great significance for these subjects. If a experiment requires data in different conditions in order to establish a general theory to give indication to human life, one's theorizing rashly without enough data would probably impair the theory in  practical uses.
     However, there are some exceptions with the form of the theory, which is my first contention with the speaker that the speaker overlooks some theories have little to do with data and they still justifies themselves through time. Take mathematics as the first example, in the history, some mathematician do derive new theories from previous ones. Furthermore, early traditional Chinese medical theories, in fact, are a series of coincidences in which some herb are happened to be found work to cure some certain disease or injure. There are also no data, while the traditional Chinese medical theories have been working generation after generation.
     My second contention with the speaker involves the plain fact that some theories are based on little data, even actually they are based on assumption or fancy, however they do us a great favor rather than being serious mistakes. I believe the great French scientific friction writer Jule Verne can be the best persuasive example. The great man just imagined so many modern inventions  which in reality took the scientists long long time to create, just as some critics ever said( and I paraphrase) that he might not be qualified to receive the scientific Nobel Prize, however, he trained so many scientific Nobel Prize winner.
     To sum up, I do understand taht the speaker's assertion actually indicates his or her worry about some people's imprudent attitude toward working may cause us great trouble. However, due to some other facts, the speaker might be too dogmatic.