Issue184【09GRE作文冲刺组】rato3月7日作文

ratoUID: 2563435

184"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."

Is it a serious mistake to theorize before one has data, just as the speaker claims? I think it is inapt to state that. As far as I concern, data might be more important to form a theory, while inductive reasoning, which might be more popular, sometimes contributes a lot to a theory.

Data, which can be attained by observing, investigating and surveying, is significant basis of a theory. Sometimes we can not draw a conclusion or even pose a supposition without any data when we are researching in some fields, for example, in the economic or social scientific one. Occasionally, several consequences come out when we are analyzing the data which is not collected for them.

On the other hand, even though Aristotle's free fall theory, which asserts that heavier objects drop in a higher speed, was disproved by Galileo with a large amount of experimental results, it is important to theorize before one has data. In the realm of natural science, it is regular to make bold assumptions about the unknown world before one has data. Further observation and experienmentation for evaluation will demonstrate or invalidate the hypotheses sooner or later. This is so called hypothetical deduction, which is widely applied to genetics and speciology. Mendel's Laws, principles of hereditary transmission of physical characteristics, were formulated by this method. In the beginning, Mendel cultivated peas was for the purpose of improving the quality of the latter. Accidentally, it led to the prior hypothesis, which was proved by Mendel subsequently, after growing plenty of peas.

Besides, it is unfortunate but we can not deny that sometimes the scientists may overlook the data, which can reverse the prior hypotheses, to protect their own standpoints and believes. For instance, Nicolaus Copernicus, who was an Astronomer and founder of the heliocentric cosmology, published his theory to his dying day, and was intensely attacked by the vast majority of his contemporaries, most astronomers and natural philosophers until he finally gain the support from Isaac Newton, who posed the theory of universal gravitation in the next century. Another example is about another European--Christopher Columbus, who believed the round-earth theory and was regarded as a swindler at one time, finally prove the theory with the patronage from Spanish royalty.

As discussed above, we should attach great importance to data without ignoring the original thoughts. What's more, the scientists should be courageous to assimilate new ideas, even though which are contrary to what they believed before.

afterglow8513UID: 2579583

184"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
Is it a serious mistake to theorize before one has data, just as the speaker claims? I think it is inapt to state that. As far as I concern, data might be more important to form a theory, while inductive reasoning, which might be more popular, sometimes contributes a lot to a theory.

Data, which can be attained by observing, investigating and surveying, is significant basis of a theory. Sometimes we can not draw a conclusion or even pose a supposition without any data when we are researching in some fields, for example, in the economic or social scientific one. Occasionally, several consequences come out when we are analyzing the data which is not collected for them.最后一句话有点突兀，如果你能加个例子或者适当阐释一下就好了~

On the other hand, even though Aristotle's free fall theory, which asserts that heavier objects drop in a higher speed, was disproved by Galileo with a large amount of experimental results, it is important to theorize before one has data. In the realm of natural science, it is regular to make bold assumptions about the unknown world before one has data. Further observation and experimentation for evaluation will demonstrate or invalidate the hypotheses sooner or later. This is so called hypothetical deduction, which is widely applied to genetics and speciology. Mendel's Laws, principles of hereditary transmission of physical characteristics, were formulated by this method. In the beginning, Mendel cultivated peas was （删掉？）for the purpose of improving the quality of the latter.这句我没太看明白，你是想说改善后代的遗传性状么？ Accidentally, it led to the prior hypothesis, which was proved by Mendel subsequently, after growing plenty of peas.
我谈点个人看法吧，我对这段的理解有分歧:theory 和hypothesis 在自然科学的研究里是两个不同的概念，我认为theory 在hypothesis之后，被证明的hypothesis 才能称为theory.不过似乎现在这个说法也不很明确，比如说弦论也不知道究竟被实验证明过没有，就叫“论”了，混乱。。。；话说史实是：孟德尔是通过实验现象得出了假设再做了系统的实验证明了他的假设，所以这个例子并不能充分证明one can theorize before data.当然啦，只要你论述的好，怎么说都行不是？
Besides, it is unfortunate but we can not deny that sometimes the scientists may overlook the data, which can reverse the prior hypotheses, to protect their own standpoints and believes. For instance, Nicolaus Copernicus, who was an astronomer and founder of the heliocentric cosmology, published his theory to his dying day, and was intensely attacked by the vast majority of his contemporaries, most astronomers and natural philosophers until he finally gain the support from Isaac Newton, who posed the theory of universal gravitation in the next century. Another example is about another European--Christopher Columbus, who believed the round-earth theory and was regarded as a swindler at one time, finally prove the theory with the patronage from Spanish royalty.
我对你这两个例子的理解是这样的：那些不识相的科学家们为了庇护自己的理论，无视哥伦布和哥白尼伟大的发现。如果我的理解是正确的，你把后两个例子中的主动被动语态调换一下，强调科学家们是怎么漠视实验事实误导真相的是不是更好？这两个例子都很好，欢迎交流！
As discussed above, we should attach great importance to data without ignoring the original thoughts. What's more, the scientists should be courageous to assimilate new ideas, even though which are contrary to what they believed before.我觉得突然说这出这句话离题有点远。。。是不是前面加点句子过渡更好？

全篇语言比较通顺，看着很舒服的说~~用词准确简洁，语言方面很值得我学习！

ratoUID: 2563435

2# afterglow8513

那個第二段的例子我冥冥之中覺得有可是我想不起來，，囧

那個“the latter”是後者，我想指代peas，，感覺再提一遍會有啰嗦感，，哎呀似乎可以用them，，對不對= = improving their qualities就好了

最後那個沒有例題吧，，我想著順便總結升華一下我倒數第二段，就說爲了防止真理被排斥被忽略的事情再發生，科學家們應該有批判精神

哎呀討論著討論著覺得中文真是好

afterglow8513UID: 2579583

嗯哪~还是中文比较传神~
只是说，如果不看你主题段，直接看开头结尾，就会觉得最后一句话有点衔接不上，但是我看北美范文的时候却没有这样感觉。话说，你觉得I的结尾重要性如何？比如，如果时间不够用了，可以弃么？以前听说过可以弃掉的说法，但我一个同学认为文章的完整性很重要。

ratoUID: 2563435

首尾不一定要銜接吧
我寫開頭的時候還沒有提到中間的想法，所以就只有贊同或反對等觀點
然後結尾還要提升一下中間提到的東西

結尾的話，，還是要看情況囖，，有些文章沒有結尾也聽完整的了，如果中間結構好的話