Issue4 0607G Phevos[Myth小组第一次作业]

phevos_xxUID: 2258006

4、"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."
完全赞同
提纲
1、        One field of study also need to concern some other issues that mainly discussed in some other fields.
2、        outsiders would bring new knowledge and experience to such a field of study.
3、        If not, the study will meet some difficulties which can not be solved.

----------------------------
I quite agree with the speaker's claim that the research in one field badly needs the support from the people who is researching on other subjects. In the modern scientific research, one project usually contains several different teams whose members differ in major and research field. What is the purpose establishing a team likes this? The practice proves that such team will be more efficient and will usually lead to more significant advances.

First of all, nowadays, most research in one field usually needs the knowledge of other fields; the modern research in one field usually concerns many subjects. The knowledge in other subjects and fields can bring new ideas, solutions, and some useful advices to the research. For example, the computer technology is mainly studied in the subject of Computer Science, such as coding, the network technology, database systems and so on. However, no matter what field one is studying in, he usually have to know the knowledge of computer science. If he wants to establish a simulation about some issue in his own field, the coding skill is needed. This skill can be provided by a person with major of computer science; it can also be provided by a researcher who knows the knowledge of coding. Without the knowledge, even if he develops a very excellent theory, he can not go on the simulation to support or prove the theory. As a result, the knowledge from outsiders is useful to the insiders’ research.

Secondly, the outsiders of one field would probably bring their knowledge and experience, even new conceptions, to insiders. Between two related fields, there are many common interests. And the interrelationship between these two fields is usually close, too. They usually investigate the same thing from different aspects. The new conception from one field may have a positive affection, especially a revolution, on the related fields. As we know, radioactivity is the starting point for cancer treatment, for the dating techniques used on ancient objects, rocks and the universe, and for molecular biology and modern genetics; it is also the source of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. The study in radioactivity makes a great contribution to the research on weapons, the atomic bomb.

On the other hand, if we only fix our eyes on the field that we are doing research in and exclude the outsiders' advice and experience, we will not success. The researchers will be tied to such one field, seems like an isolated island as well as the researching he is dong. It is common that one has some difficulties in the research. He may not be able to solve this problem alone because of his limited knowledge.

In conclusion, no fields of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. In order to doing research well, the researchers should open their eyes and have a large amount of knowledge about this field and other fields concerned.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

4、"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."
完全赞同
提纲
1、        One field of study also need to concern some other issues that mainly discussed in some other fields.
2、        outsiders would bring new knowledge and experience to such a field of study.
3、        If not, the study will meet some difficulties which can not be solved.

对于提纲的问题, 我觉得第一条和第二条的意思差不多, other issues 从某种意义上讲就是new knowledge and experience. 第三条作为反面论在逻辑上于主题的关系和第一条也是一样的, 一般正反论的时候两方面的情况就都会提到, 按照这个思路写很可能几段说的意思都差不多.

----------------------------
I quite agree with the speaker's claim that the research in one field badly needs the support from the people who is researching on other subjects这个词有些问题, 毕竟不同SUBJECT在一个FIELD里面也是存在的. In the modern scientific research, one project同SUBJECT,建议改成"a project in one certain field" usually contains several different teams whose members differ in major and research fields. What is the purpose establishing a team likes this? The practice proves that such team will be more efficient and will usually lead to more significant advances.前面说的是不同的团队，现在变成的一个团队,前后逻辑不一致. 作为首段而言虽然重复了作者的观点, 但却没有对全文的论证过程进行预先的组织, 这个不太符合评判标准中"well organized"的标准. 而使用了一个比较泛泛的例子也让这段在全文的结构中起不到领起全文的作用, 人们看了这个例子很自然会想到全文要把精力都花在论述这样一个团队(还是几个?)为何会比较有效上.

First of all, nowadays, most research in one field usually needs the knowledge of other fields; the modern research in one field usually concerns many subjects. The knowledge in other subjects and fields can bring new ideas, solutions, and some useful advices to the research.这段是提纲第二条的内容 For example, the computer technology is mainly studied in the subject of Computer Science, such as coding, the network technology, database systems and so on. However, no matter what field one is studying in, he usually have to know the knowledge of computer science. If he wants to establish a simulation about some issue in his own field, the coding skill is needed. This skill can be provided by a person with major of computer science; it can also be provided by a researcher who knows the knowledge of coding. Without the knowledge, even if he develops a very excellent theory, he can not go on the simulation to support or prove the theory. As a result, the knowledge from outsiders is useful to the insiders’ research.第一段所举的例子不象是不同领域的知识交叉的问题, 却象是同一领域下不同次领域的知识交叉,对于一个非计算机专业的读者而言, 这其中的区别是很难想象的, 特别是在一开始举例子的时候是说了个Computer Science(为什么要大写?), 接下来的所有讨论都在这个大领域之下, 那么不同领域带来的subject也就无从谈起了. 修改建议: 举例子的时候把网络技术揪出来当一个单一学科,然后说编程,编码,数据库对它有什么用,网络技术需要哪些外领域的题目和知识.

Secondly, the outsiders of one field would probably bring their knowledge and experience, even new conceptions, to insiders. Between two related fields, there are many common interests. And the interrelationship between these two fields is usually close, too. 就泛泛而言这两句话的话, 读者也弄不清common intererests和interrelationship指的是什么, 不如把例子放到每句话后面They usually investigate the same thing from different aspects.这句应该跟在common interests那句后面 The new conception from one field may have a positive affection, especially a revolution, on the related fields. As we know, radioactivity is the starting point for cancer treatment, for the dating techniques used on ancient objects, rocks and the universe, and for molecular biology and modern genetics; it is also the source of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. The study in radioactivity makes a great contribution to the research on weapons, the atomic bomb.这个例子一直是在谈common interests, 却对于这种共同的话题带来的影响没什么解释, 表面上看虽然它也确实是别的学科的知识带到某一学科, 但也可以认为是别的学科的subject被用于某一学科,也就是说第二段的例子跟第一段论证的是同一个主题, 但由于论证的偏颇却让它看上去在论证另一个主题,而这个主题则是提纲里没有的.

On the other hand, if we only fix our eyes on the field that we are doing research in and exclude the outsiders' advice and experience, we will not success. The researchers will be tied to such one field, seems like an isolated island as well as the researching he is dong. It is common that one has some difficulties in the research. He may not be able to solve this problem alone because of his limited knowledge.
缺乏例证, 第二句话显得有些多余, 第三句和第四句最后组成一个长的复杂句,否则也很突兀. 用ARGUE的话,  就是no evidence is provided...

In conclusion, no fields of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. In order to doing research well, the researchers should open their eyes and have a large amount of knowledge about this field and other fields concerned.

总结: 由于全文讨论的各个分论点没有明显的区别开来,所以结尾也就很套路化, 有些车轱辘话来回说的感觉, 真正STRONG的例子并没有几个. 我想主要问题还是出在提纲上, 因为提纲那三条就没有很好的区别开, 所以文章的层次也就没有分开.
建议: 提纲有几条不重要,重要的是能够充分论证ISSUE, 这篇文章的北美范文所有的正文篇幅就举了两个例子,一个考古一个天文, 全文都是例证, 一样很STRONG, 与其在一个话题下东一句西一句想找不同的角度,不如从例证上下功夫.

phevos_xxUID: 2258006

谢谢:) 很有启发