【kaleidoscope】第七次作业Issue184 by Atticuswang

atticuswangUID: 2663189

Issue184
It is a grave mistake to theorize without data.
Few of us will dispute that data is rather playing an essential role in theorizing, yet the speaker seems to go to extremes by overemphasis that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data. As far as I am concerned, data offers us evidence to draw a solid conclusion, while too much reliance on data will hamper the development of science and technology.

Admittedly, data lays the foundation of theory, which is usually generated by analyzing, inducing, and concluding. Without data, the researchers' ideas are unconvincing at all and just like castle in the air. Thus data offers evidence to substantiate these ideas to evaluate whether they are worthy or not. The formation of laws of heredity is an apt example to illustrate this. Mendel, the father of genetics, spent 8 years planting peas and gathered massive data of the characteristics of peas. By sorting and analyzing the data of peas, he claimed the law of heredity, which was also
proved in a Biological method
later.
On the contrary, the famous Greek philosophy Aristotle, once claimed that heavy objectives fell at a faster speed than light ones, and this occupied people's minds for thousands of years until Galilei's Pisa tower experiment came to disprove that the sage's former claim was totally wrong. From this two examples, we can see that data is rather vital to give birth to theory, and claims with the absence of data may even lead people to astray.

Nevertheless, even if it is crucial, data is not dispensable for one to generate a new idea. For one thing, data is not so easy to obtain in certain researches involved with space with limitation of technology, or anthropology which requires large samples. Or even one can get all the needed data, nobody can guarantee its accuracy. Hence should we need to stop researching until data is ready? Of course not. Scientists and researchers make hypotheses first and try to demonstrate them in the future. For example, the black hole and explosion theory which was first proposed by Hawking, is never substantiated till now, but provides people with guidance of following research of space. From this example, the theory based on hypotheses is of great use as well as that based on data.

Moreover, as is discussed above, too much emphasis on data will hamper or postpone the discoveries of new theories, sometimes we need inspiration as well to achieve our goals. For example, the discovery of continent drift theory, which was first proposed by Wagner when he was ill in bed, was attributed to the observation and imagination of a world map instead of concrete data. He found that the coast line of Africa and South America match well and that inspired Wagner to make the hypotheses that the two plates was originally united in ancient time, and people find biological evidence to prove this hypotheses later. This instance shows that other subjective factors rather that data can also help us generate a new idea or theory.

In all, mostly there is massive data before any convincing conclusion can be drawn, yet exception exists. Sometimes inspiration and creativity also play important role in new discoveries. Therefore, it is arbitrary to assert that theorizing before one has data is a grave mistake.

wdassfmUID: 2542447

Few of us will dispute that data is rather playing (playing rather) an essential role in theorizing, yet the speaker seems to go to extremes by overemphasis that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data. As far as I am concerned, data offers us evidence to draw a solid conclusion, while too much reliance on data will hamper the development of science and technology.(开头很好，学习~)

Admittedly, data lays the foundation of theory, which is usually generated(generalized?) by analyzing, inducing, and concluding. Without data, the researchers' ideas are unconvincing(are not convincing) at all and just like castle in the air. Thus data offers evidence to substantiate these ideas to evaluate whether they are worthy or not. The formation of laws of heredity is an apt example to illustrate this. Mendel, the father of genetics, spent 8 years planting peas and gathered massive data of the characteristics of peas. By sorting and analyzing the data of peas, he claimed the law of heredity, which was also proved in a(with) Biological method later.

On the contrary, the famous Greek philosophy Aristotle, once claimed that heavy objectives fell at a faster speed than light ones, and this occupied people's minds for thousands of years until Galilei's Pisa tower experiment came to disprove that the sage's former claim was totally wrong(呵呵，本来我也想用这个例子来着，但是我觉得提他的斜面验证实验比较好，那个实验次数多，可以写到数据). From this(these) two examples, we can see that data is rather vital to give birth to theory, and （claims with） the absence of data may even lead people to (go) astray.

Nevertheless, even if it is crucial, data is not dispensable for one to generate a new idea. For one thing, data is not so easy to obtain in certain researches involved with space with(because of) limitation of technology, or anthropology which requires large samples. Or even one can get all the needed data, nobody can guarantee its accuracy(个人觉得这个观点不是很用说服力~如果没有数据，下结论是错误的~逆否应该是~如果要得出正确的结论，需要数据，晕了~~). Hence should we need(have) to stop researching until data is ready? Of course not. Scientists and researchers make
hypotheses first and try to demonstrate them in the future. For example, the black hole and explosion theory which was first proposed by Hawking, is never substantiated till now, but provides people with guidance of following research of space(很好的观点). From this example, the theory based on hypotheses is of great use as well as that based on data.(结论挺好，但是这种说法似乎有点勉强……)

Moreover, as is discussed above, too much emphasis on data will hamper or postpone the discoveries of new theories(上面的例子似乎不是这个吧……), sometimes we need inspiration as well to achieve our goals. For example, the discovery of continent drift theory, which was first proposed by Wagner when he was ill in bed, was attributed to the observation and imagination of a world map instead of concrete data. He found that the coast line of Africa and South America match well and that inspired Wagner to make the hypotheses that the two plates was originally united in ancient time, and people find biological evidence to prove this hypotheses later. This instance shows that other subjective factors rather than data can also help us generate a new idea or theory.

In all, mostly there is massive data before any convincing conclusion can be drawn, yet exception exists. Sometimes inspiration and creativity also play important role in new discoveries. Therefore, it is arbitrary to assert that theorizing before one has data is a grave mistake.

LZ条理清晰，我本来也想这么写来着结果想不通……额……例子再改改，就更完美啦~