issue184 【kaleidoscope】小组第七次作业

cloverlanpusUID: 2606441

The speaker asserts that theorizing before one has data will lead to a grave mistake. I fundamentally agree with this idea. As far as I am concerned, while some of the theories are hard to be quantified by data, it is impossible to achieve an accurate theory without any attention about the data.

I concede that in some areas it is hard to obtain the accurate data for the reason that our observation can hardly be entirely objective. After all, all the human being will bring some subjective factors into the observation more or less. What's more, for some experiments, the perfect circumstance doesn't exist at all, particularly in the field of physics. As a typical example, the famous slope experiment of Galileo Galilei,the foundation of Newton's  theory, which illustrates that it is inertia that keep an object moving on rather than force, is partially based on scientific assumption without data because the perfect condition without any resistance is impossible to reach on earth. This example demonstrates that some scientific assumptions can be accepted since there are some data beyond one's ability to obtain.

However, in other fields , due to the basic position of data in that area, it is impossible to theorize with convincing data.  In the the field of social science, necessarily through accurate survey and exact proportion can the conclusion be credible and accepted by the masses. Without impersonal data, the theory in social science is only a result of one's subjective judgement as a castle in the air. In the field of nature science, data also exert a significant influence on the theory. Let alone probability theory and statistics which are entirely based on data, even in the area of biology, data also take a important part in it such as Mendel's experiment about the pea that finally lead to genetic law.

In addition, without any data to examine the accuracy of the theory, the chance of authority and subjectivity enormously increase, both of which will lead to grave mistake. After all, only the theory with the data that it has been examined to be right in any situation can be accepted and taught to later generations as a truth. Here is a reasonable example to illustrate my point.   The theory of Pythagotas, which had been saw as the truth for thousands years but without any data to support it, misled uncountable teenagers from one generation to another until 18th century.

To sum up, although admittedly in some typical conditions one can not reach the accurate data, its obvious position in modern science should not be overlooked for it is the key to establish and examine a theory.

vina1114UID: 2559135

The speaker asserts that theorizing before one has data will lead to a grave mistake. I fundamentally agree with this idea. As far as I am concerned, while some of the theories are hard to be quantified by data, it is impossible to achieve an accurate theory without any attention about the data.

I concede that in some areas it is hard to obtain the accurate data for the reason that our observation can hardly be entirely objective. After all, all the human being will bring some subjective factors into the observation more or less. What's more, for some experiments, the perfect circumstance doesn't exist at all, particularly in the field of physics. As a typical example, the famous slope experiment of Galileo Galilei,the foundation of Newton's  theory, which illustrates that it is inertia that keep an object moving on rather than force, is partially based on scientific assumption without data because the perfect condition without any resistance is impossible to reach on earth. This example demonstrates that some scientific assumptions can be accepted since there are some data beyond one's ability to obtain.

However, in other fields , due to the basic position of data in that area, it is impossible to theorize with convincing data.  In the the field of social science, necessarily through accurate survey and exact proportion can the conclusion be credible and accepted by the masses. Without impersonal data, the theory in social science is only a result of one's subjective judgement as a castle in the air. In the field of nature science, data also exert a significant influence on the theory. Let alone probability theory and statistics which are entirely based on data, even in the area of biology, data also take a important part in it such as Mendel's experiment about the pea that finally lead to genetic law.

In addition, without any data to examine the accuracy of the theory, the chance of authority and subjectivity enormously increase, both of which will lead to grave mistake. After all, only the theory with the data that it has been examined to be right in any situation can be accepted and taught to later generations as a truth. Here is a reasonable example to illustrate my point.   The theory of Pythagotas, which had been saw as the truth for thousands years but without any data to support it, misled uncountable teenagers from one generation to another until 18th century.举例子的两个不同说法  借鉴下 每次我都一想就是for example  

To sum up, although admittedly in some typical conditions one can not reach the accurate data, its obvious position in modern science should not be overlooked for it is the key to establish and examine a theory.

楼主这篇文章我觉得写得很不错  我写的相比之下真。。。哎 楼主语言运用的很好 还有例子  能不能告诉我下你是如何收集例子的 。。我很愁这个 。。

cloverlanpusUID: 2606441

2# vina1114

谢谢~~  有些例子是自己以前就知道的，再就是百度百科，百度知道，google学术……
我觉得找例子是一方面，另一方面是一个例子多用，挖掘例子中的细节扩展用途。
还有XDF说ETS不要求例子的真实性（虽然我试过用假的），只要不太离谱，编一些应急应该也没什么吧~~