【kaleidoscope】小组第7次作业 Issue184 by Azoi

azoiUID: 2636348

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 546
TIME: 0:45:00
DATE: 2009/8/11


Should anyone put forward his theory even before he has data about a certain phenomenon? At first glance of this question, most people would be in favor to say yes just as the speaker does, because that a theory without proper data buttressing seems like a castle in the air. However, after a careful meditation over this issue, I tend to disagree with the speaker, as discussed below.

To begin with, I don't deny that a theory based on some detailed data would be much more convincing than those don’t. Analysis and reasoning processes would be more logical and reasonable; hence, the result would be more close to the truth to a certain extent. After several weeks of exploring and researching in the Galapagos Island, Darwin was able to collect enough data of the local species, including their habits, population and the relationship between different subspecies, which made it possible for him to make out the theory of evolution. Nowadays, Darwin's theory based on researching data has dominating the field of biology.

Although theories based on researching data seems more genuine, it's entirely unwise to overlook the importance of some theories that don't have supporting data. In some cases of scientific researching, the data of a certain phenomenon is either too hard or even impossible to get. For instance, if an archeologist wants to conduct a research about a prehistoric tribe, it would be totally impossible for him to have a scrutiny over the daily life of the ancient people. Therefore, all that he can do is to draw his theory over the mere ruins or remains of the tribe, and the rest would be all his wild guess. Thus we can conclude that in some specific fields such as history, it is important for the scientists to have the ability to make his own theory without data, even the theory would be proven wrong later.

Also, there's another example for researchers that one must theorize before he even has data--that is when the data is so enormous or complicated, he must draw the conclusion first to guide the direction of the rest research, or he would never finish the task. A telling example is that the discovery of the wave and particle characters of the light ray. The debate of what is the essence of light has lasted many centuries, mainly focused on whether light is a kind of wave, or a kind of particle. Many scientists had their own theory yet the experiments they conducted could never perfectly testify their hypothesis. Then, Sir William Hamilton has made its own theory that light is both a kind of wave and particle, which was finally proven right by decades of experiments.

In the final analysis, if we could have data before we draw our theory that would be the optimal approach to find the truth. Yet we should always be aware that there is much possibility that sometime it is impractical to draw our conclusion based on data, and many theories proven correct were merely scientists' wild guesses or quirky notions. If we regard theorizing before one has data as a grave mistake at the first place and by instinct reckon them wrong, our society today would be never so advanced as it is now.

rjyuuUID: 2591508

十分不好意思！昨天电脑瘫痪 先占楼 稍后补上

rjyuuUID: 2591508

没有颜色。。。传文件好了

rjyuuUID: 2591508

2# rjyuu