issue184 【challenge yourself小组】第一次作业 by springelf

springelfUID：2458536

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

提纲：反对
1.确实，很多理论都是在实验的基础上的出来的
2.并不是所有的理论都是要有数据才能建立的
  ①有些没有数据而建立起来的理论到后来也证明是正确的
②一些纯理论或者文科的学科，其理论是无法用试验数据来证明的

The topic asserts that to theorize will make vital mistake without data. Considering many scientific facts, it seems that we have to concede this assertion. After all, the saying should be "theorize derive from practice". However, I disagree the declaration based on the following view: (1) the history told us not all the theories made before data were mistakes. (2) When we turn to some art or pure theories fields, we will recognize that many theories cannot be basic for the experiment and data.

True, the speaker's assertion that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data is clearly accurate insofar as some experimental science. The experimental data play an important role in theorizing. They can illustrate the accuracy or error of one theory. Take the Galieo for example; he was, above all, a man who experimented. He had been the first to turn a telescope to the sky, and he had been there evidence enough to overthrow Aristotle. And his famous law of free fall is based on his data of generalizing the results of his many experiments. And, on another side, it is conceivable that the theory based on experimental science without data will have two resources: plagiarizing or fabricating. Plagiarism cannot be regarded as theorizing, and fabricated theories must be a grave mistake. In short, many theories are fundamental for the data.

Beyond the concession, however, I disagree that the assertion is extended to all the realms. we must pay attention various facts that not all the theories are basic for the data, which has two claims: for one thing, some theories are set up before data because of the limit of science and technology, yet they have been terrified to be correct now; for the other thing, some pure academic or art theories will have no data to illustrate them. In fact, returning to the astronomy：Discovered on September 23, 1846, Neptune was the first planet found by mathematical prediction rather than regular observation. Unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to deduce the gravitational perturbation of an unknown planet. Neptune was found within a degree of the predicted position. The moon Triton was found shortly thereafter, but none of the planet's other 12 moons were discovered before the 20th century. Neptune has been visited by only one spacecraft, which flew by the planet on August 25, 1989. Indisputably, the theory before data has been proved to be correct.

For some pure academic field, it seems to prove the theories right or wrong with experimental data. After all, all these theories are pure academic. Their characters will be changed if they need data demonstrate. Likewise, it is more ridiculous to theorize in art realm, for none theories are based on data in this realm. The philosophy will be an apt illustration: philosophy theory, the science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, undoubtedly are set up without data. And nor will its content such as value system, the moral standard of the society needs data. The philosophers observe all the social phenomena, then abstract, summary, refine, generalize, and then theorize. They need no experiment, no data to theorize, and are allowed the different standpoint without right or wrong. So, we cannot consider that the philosophic theories are all the grave mistakes, only on account of without data.

In sum, I concede that to theorize in some realms is a grave mistake before one has mistakes. Nonetheless, to large extent, the claim is only limited to those ones based on experiment. In view of various scientific facts, the fact that not all the theories without data are errors must be noticed. In the same way, some fields don’t require the data at all. Therefore, in different realms, the ways to theorize are different from each other and should not depend on the data.

xomaeUID：2468629

The topic asserts that to theorize will make (a) vital mistake without data. Considering many scientific facts, it seems that we have to concede this assertion. After all, the saying should be "theorize derive from practice". However, I disagree the declaration based on the foll(?)owing view: (1) the history told us not all the theories made before data were mistakes. (2) When we turn to some art or pure theories fields, we will recognize that many theories cannot be basic for the experiment and data.

True, the speaker's assertion that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data is clearly accurate insofar as some experimental science. The experimental data play an important role in theorizing. They can illustrate the accuracy or error of one theory. Take the Galieo for example; he was, above all, a man who experimented. He had been the first to turn a telescope to the sky, and he had been there evidence enough(had enough evidence) to overthrow Aristotle. And his famous law of free fall is based on his data of generalizing the results of his many experiments. And, on another side, it is conceivable that the theory based on experimental science without data will have two resources: plagiarizing or fabricating. Plagiarism cannot be regarded as theorizing(名词吧，cribbing), and fabricated theories must be a grave mistake. In short, many theories are fundamental for the data.

Beyond the concession, however, I disagree that the assertion is extended to all the realms. we must pay attention (to)  various facts that not all the theories are basic for the data, which has two claims: for one thing, some theories are set up before data because of the limit of science and technology, yet they have been terrified to be correct now; for the other thing, some pure academic or art theories will have no data to illustrate them. In fact, returning to the astronomy：Discovered on September 23, 1846, Neptune was the first planet found by mathematical prediction rather than regular observation. Unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to deduce the gravitational perturbation of an unknown planet. Neptune was found within a degree of the predicted position. The moon Triton was found shortly thereafter, but none of the planet's other 12 moons were discovered before the 20th century. Neptune has been visited by only one spacecraft, which flew by the planet on August 25, 1989. Indisputably, the theory before data has been proved to be correct.

For some pure academic fields, it seems to prove the theories right or wrong with experimental data. After all, all these theories are pure academic. Their characters will be changed if they need data demonstrate. Likewise, it is more ridiculous to theorize in art realm, for none theories are based on data in this realm. The philosophy will be an apt illustration: philosophy theory, the science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, undoubtedly are set up without data. And nor will its content such as value system, the moral standard of the society needs(应该去掉needs吧，要表达社会数据？) data. The philosophers observe all the social phenomena, then abstract, summary, refine, generalize, and then theorize. They need no experiment, no data to theorize, and are allowed the different standpoint without right or wrong. So, we cannot consider that the philosophic theories are all the grave mistakes, only on account of without data.

In sum, I concede that to theorize in some realms is a grave mistake before one has mistakes(data). Nonetheless, to large extent, the claim is only limited to those ones based on experiment. In view of various scientific facts, the fact that not all the theories without data are errors must be noticed. In the same way, some fields don’t require the data at all. Therefore, in different realms, the ways to theorize are different from each other and should not depend on the data.

springelfUID：2458536

1. he had been there evidence enough(had enough evidence) to overthrow Aristotle. 这句是新概念抄下来的，嗯。鄙视我吧~~
2. Plagiarism cannot be regarded as theorizing(名词吧，cribbing) 这句话我的意思是，如果是剽窃的话就不能算是建立建立理论，名词的话应该怎么用呢？
3. nor will its content such as value system, the moral standard of the society needs(应该去掉needs吧，要表达社会数据？) data。
这个不是的，用倒装把will 提前了，所以后面剩个need。但是确实是我没有用对，应该用need的，造成误会了~

谢谢小X的认真修改~:handshake

tongdawpUID：2500696

The topic asserts that to theorize will make vital mistake without data. Considering many scientific facts, it seems that we have to concede this assertion. After all, the saying should be "theorize derive from practice". However, I disagree the declaration based on the following view: (1) the history told us not all the theories made before data were mistakes. (2) When we turn to some art or pure theories fields, we will recognize that many theories cannot be basic for the experiment and data.

True, the speaker's assertion that it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data is clearly accurate insofar as some experimental science. The experimental data play an important role in theorizing. They can illustrate the accuracy or error of one theory. Take the Galieo for example; he was, above all, a man who experimented. He had been the first to turn a telescope to the sky, and he had been there evidence enough to overthrow Aristotle. And his famous law of free fall is based on his data of generalizing the results of his many experiments. And, on another side, it is conceivable that the theory based on experimental science without data will have two resources: plagiarizing or fabricating. Plagiarism cannot be regarded as theorizing, and fabricated theories must be a grave mistake. In short, many theories are fundamental for the data.（这句话反了吧……）

Beyond the concession, however, I disagree that the assertion is extended to all the realms. we must pay attention （缺介词to）various facts that not all the theories are basic for the data（好像还是反了……）, which has two claims: for one thing, some theories are set up before data because of the limit of science and technology, yet they have been terrified（笔误吧，是verified） to be correct now; for the other thing, some pure academic or art theories will have no data to illustrate them. （这里分一段感觉结构更清晰些）In fact, returning to the astronomy：Discovered on September 23, 1846, Neptune was the first planet found by mathematical prediction rather than regular observation. Unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to deduce the gravitational perturbation of an unknown planet. Neptune was found within a degree of the predicted position. The moon Triton was found shortly thereafter, but none of the planet's other 12 moons were discovered before the 20th century. Neptune has been visited by only one spacecraft, which flew by the planet on August 25, 1989. Indisputably, the theory before data has been proved to be correct. （这个例子感觉少了些论证）

For some pure academic field, it seems to prove the theories right or wrong with experimental data.（读这句怎么不明白作者的意思了……）After all, all these theories are pure academic. Their characters will be changed if they need data demonstrate. Likewise, it is more ridiculous to theorize in art realm, for none theories are based on data in this realm.（在这个领域，没有理论是建立在数据之上的，所以在艺术领域建立理论就更加可笑。这句是该这么翻译吧，但怎么这么别扭。）The philosophy will be an apt illustration: philosophy theory, the science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, undoubtedly are set up without data.（这句又不懂了，刚开始貌似要拿哲学举例子，一个冒号，后面又成了列举了，什么意思？后面的那些不全是哲学分支吧）And nor will its content such as value system, the moral standard of the society needs data. The philosophers observe all the social phenomena, then abstract, summary, refine, generalize, and then theorize.（哲学家研究社会现象？）They need no experiment, no data to theorize, and are allowed the different standpoint without right or wrong. So, we cannot consider that the philosophic theories are all the grave mistakes, only on account of without data.
（这一段的论证不是很有说服力，尤其是用哲学这个例子来说明理论是可以没有数据的支持而建立起来这个论证有些问题：首先是对于哲学的范围，像伦理学，美学这些并不属于哲学；其次是哲学理论的建立过程，作者说哲学家研究社会现象，这点就很有问题，哲学有形而上和形而下，形而下才研究社会吧，形而上并不研究社会；而且，研究社会现象，总结，提炼，概括然后提出理论，这个过程中确实不需要实验，但不需要数据吗？研究社会现象不就需要数据吗？这里作者吧不需要实验当作不需要数据，有偷换概念之嫌。）

In sum, I concede that to theorize in some realms is a grave mistake before one has mistakes（又是笔误吧，data）. Nonetheless, to large extent, the claim is only limited to those ones（ones多余，去掉） based on experiment. In view of various scientific facts, the fact that not all the theories without data are errors must be noticed. In the same way, some fields don’t require the data at all. Therefore, in different realms, the ways to theorize are different from each other and should not depend on the data.


文章的层次很清晰，各段落承接的比较好。语言读起来有些不顺畅，而且有一些语法问题。论证过程除了第三个分论点外都很好。



一点感想：虽然评别人的文章头头是道，但自己却写不出，评别人的作文的时候自己也学到了很多。

springelfUID：2458536

1. theories are basic for the data（好像还是反了……） 嗯？我想说的是理论是基于数据的。这个用法不对吗？

2.（这个例子感觉少了些论证） 嗯，这个天文例子是跟你文章里的那个假说差不多的意思，只是，用这个例子就是说没有的观察也能推测得到。不过好像这个例子说服力不强。

3. Likewise, it is more ridiculous to theorize in art realm, for none theories are based on data in this realm.（在这个领域，没有理论是建立在数据之上的，所以在艺术领域建立理论就更加可笑。这句是该这么翻译吧，但怎么这么别扭。）这句是我写错了，改一下：it is more ridiculous to theorize with data in art realm, for none theories are based on data in this realm.

4. The philosophy will be an apt illustration: philosophy theory, the science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, undoubtedly are set up without data.（这句又不懂了，刚开始貌似要拿哲学举例子，一个冒号，后面又成了列举了，什么意思？后面的那些不全是哲学分支吧）嗯，这句话的意思是，比如说哲学，是由逻辑学，伦理学，美学等等组成的，然而所有这些学科的理论都不是建立在数据的基础上的。是不是写的很费解啊？:vomit: 嗯，还有，那个哲学的定义是从词典上抄的~:loveliness:

5.（而且，研究社会现象，总结，提炼，概括然后提出理论，这个过程中确实不需要实验，但不需要数据吗？研究社会现象不就需要数据吗？这里作者吧不需要实验当作不需要数据，有偷换概念之嫌。）嗯，这个我在写的过程中想过的。我觉得数据这个东西太大，也太抽象，所以就把它特指为实验中的数据或者由试验得出的数据，好像在北美里也有这样的用法，至于对不对我就不知道了~~:vomit:

嗯，谢谢小tong的认真批改~:handshake

tongdawpUID：2500696

1.A是B的基础：A is basic to B,我用的词典是巴比伦-柯林斯

5.关于这个问题我也是很头疼，我甚至有想法要对data这个东西下定义，然后根据不同的定义在给出不同的论证，好难写。

springelfUID：2458536

咦，下定义这个办法好！！！以后可以试试~~~:loveliness:

还有 basic to ，嗯，记住了~

[ 本帖最后由 springelf 于 2008-7-27 00:30 编辑 ]