issue184 一气呵成，信心暴涨，有砖必回！

zehuaUID：199246

题目: it is a grave mistake to theorize without data.
拍砖者留文必回拍。
----------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a grave mistake to theorize without data? In my view, it is generally true that scholars need to obtain enough data before theorizing. Nevertheless, we do not need complete data to summarize, and not every subject of science requires data.

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that science is primarily based on experiments. Viewing from history we can see that for many subjects, prior to great advances in a certain area is always the massive accumulation of raw data. Physicists did experiments for almost two thousand years, beginning from the ancient Greece, before in England came Newton to summarize and set up the classical physics. Modern biology began to advance from early 1900's, accumulating data and until only recently did bio-informatics become popular. While data is the flour, scientists are the bakers. How could bakers make bread without flour? Similarly, a scientist's theory without data is merely a fantasy by a monomania. Therefore, it is nature principles that scientists need to sum up with data.

However, the foci would be to narrow if we over-emphasize on the importance of data, while failing to see the property of data accumulation in scientific research. It is commonly accepted that scientific data is so massive that the accumulation of data could almost never finish. At least, this is true with present technology. Nature is so complex that we can never solve all of the problems and thoroughly understand the world. A famous scientist said: “human advancement of knowledge is like the expanding of a circle. The larger it is, the more the unknown it would touch at the edge.” Therefore it is impractical to wait until every piece of data is obtained before theorizing. What would happen if every theorist is sitting at home, waiting for the complete pile of data? No theory would be set up at all. Classical physics was founded by Newton, when people hadn't recognized the phenomenon of diffraction of light. Although this theory was later invalidated by Eintein, we could not assert that Classical physics is of little value due to its contribution to science and technology advancement. Therefore scientists are theorizing on the basis of incomplete data.

Moreover, obtaining data for certain subjects is either difficult or impractical. Analytical mathematics works on the basis of pure numerology and reasoning, which has little to do with experiment.  In other word, data is not necessary for the development of theoretical mathematics. In addition, it is too difficult for astrological physicists to accumulate data. Even if some data is obtained, it is mostly inaccurate. Any advances in such areas are mostly based on scientists' imagination and speculation. Therefore it would be too importune to require any theorist to work with data.

In the final analysis, the speaker's assertion is partly true. Data is of great importance to scientists because almost any putative theory is based on data. However, we should realize the fact that scientists are always theorizing with incomplete data, due to the certain technology or intelligence limitations human have. We should also understand that specific areas of science do not require data to theorize.

xiaonawangUID：2114716

Is it a grave mistake to theorize without data? In my view, it is generally true that scholars need to obtain enough data before theorizing. Nevertheless, we do not need complete data to summarize, and not every subject of science requires data.（简洁）

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that science is primarily based on experiments. Viewing from history we can see that for many subjects, prior to great advances in a certain area is always the massive accumulation of raw data. Physicists did experiments for almost two thousand years, beginning from the ancient Greece, before in England came Newton to summarize and set up the classical physics.
Modern biology began to advance from early 1900's, accumulating data and until only recently did bio-informatics become popular（这个句子给人的感觉是生物学中数据的应用是在生物信息学出现以后才开始。不妥。建议把时间1900改为1950，也就是沃森他们发现DNA双螺旋结构那时候开始，毕竟生物信息学基本就是核酸序列的学问）While data is the flour, scientists are the bakers. How could bakers make bread without flour? Similarly, a scientist's theory without data is merely a fantasy by a monomania. Therefore, it is nature principles that scientists need to sum up with data.

However, the foci would be to narrow if we over-emphasize on the importance of data, while failing to see the property of data accumulation in scientific research. It is commonly accepted that scientific data is so massive that the accumulation of data could almost never finish. At least, this is true with present technology. Nature is so complex that we can never solve all of the problems and thoroughly understand the world. A famous scientist said: “human advancement of knowledge is like the expanding of a circle. The larger it is, the more the unknown it would touch at the edge.（好句子呀，我怎么没想到呢）” Therefore it is impractical to wait until every piece of data is obtained before theorizing. What would happen if every theorist is sitting at home, waiting for the complete pile of data? No theory would be set up at all. Classical physics was founded by Newton, when people hadn't recognized the phenomenon of diffraction of light. Although this theory was later invalidated by Eintein, we could not assert that Classical physics is of little value due to its contribution to science and technology advancement. Therefore scientists are theorizing on the basis of incomplete data.（总结句，我经常忘写，看到你的句子，提醒我不少东西，谢谢）

Moreover, obtaining data for certain subjects is either difficult or impractical. Analytical mathematics works on the basis of pure numerology and reasoning, which has little to do with experiment.  In other word, data is not necessary for the development of theoretical mathematics（really?  can we imagine any Math subject has no data?  请问data怎么理解？只能指实验数据吗？理论数学就不需要数据了吗？）. In addition, it is too difficult for astrological physicists to accumulate data（I don't think so.  Is that true, that astrologists can not find available data easily?）. Even if some data is obtained, it is mostly inaccurate(why?). Any advances in such areas are mostly based on scientists' imagination and speculation. Therefore it would be too importune(形容词？) to require any theorist to work with data.

In the final analysis, the speaker's assertion is partly true. Data is of great importance to scientists because almost any putative theory is based on data. However, we should realize the fact that scientists are always theorizing with incomplete data, due to the certain technology or intelligence limitations human have. We should also understand that specific areas of science do not require data to theorize.



我觉得写得很好。
唯一可能的不足是倒数第二段的例子可以吗？我不太清楚。
有空，帮我看看？
附：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... hlight=%2Bxiaona%2B

[ Last edited by xiaonawang on 2005-7-21 at 12:21 ]

zehuaUID：199246

谢谢。等我下午帮你看。
importune 到底怎么用啊？老用impose,我想换个胃口。
倒数第二段：我的理解是纯理论数学不需要数据的。数据应该就是试验数据的意思，用来计量一个客观现象的度量。
什么叫理论数据？你的意思是说1，2，3，4也算数据？ 这个请高手指点一下！
天文方面，我的意思是即使得到数据也往往不准，是由于目前客观技术条件太烂导致的。这里没有说清楚。。。。

Pluto13003780UID：2118087

While data is the flour， data的单复数问题。全文将date用的是单数，即后面都是跟的is.

Nature is so complex that we can never solve all of the problems and thoroughly understand the world.  
Nature is so complex that we can never solve all of the problems and understand the world thoroughly.  更喜欢后面一种。

A famous scientist said: “human advancement of knowledge is like the expanding of a circle. The larger it is, the more the unknown it would touch at the edge.”
牛，值得学习。

Moreover, obtaining data for certain subjects is either difficult or impractical.
Moreover, obtaining data for certain subjects is either impractical or difficult.

analytical mathematics 是一个专门的subject，慎用。
numerology（数字命理学）该词慎用，不等同于number theory.  可考虑用logic替换。

speculation有臆测的意思。   可考虑用insperation替换。

Therefore 共出现四次。

sharon84UID：2110816

Is it a grave mistake to theorize without data? In my view, it is generally true that scholars need to obtain enough data before theorizing. Nevertheless, we do not need complete data to summarize, and not every subject of science requires data.

It might seem tempting to agree with the speaker, on the basis that science is primarily based on experiments. Viewing from history we can see that for many subjects, prior to great advances in a certain area is always the massive accumulation of raw data. Physicists did experiments for almost two thousand years, beginning from the ancient Greece, before in England came Newton to summarize and set up the classical physics. Modern biology began to advance from early 1900's, accumulating data and until only recently did bio-informatics become popular.[这两句话有点语病:p] While data is the flour, scientists are the bakers. How could bakers make bread without flour? Similarly, a scientist's theory without data is merely a fantasy by a monomania. Therefore, it is nature principles that scientists need to sum up with data.

However, the foci would be to narrow if we over-emphasize on the importance of data, while failing to see the property of data accumulation in scientific research. It is commonly accepted that scientific data is so massive that the accumulation of data could almost never finish. At least, this is true with present technology. Nature is so complex that we can never solve all of the problems and thoroughly understand the world. A famous scientist said: “human advancement of knowledge is like the expanding of a circle. The larger it is, the more the unknown it would touch at the edge.” Therefore it is impractical to wait until every piece of data is obtained before theorizing. What would happen if every theorist is sitting at home, waiting for the complete pile of data? No theory would be set up at all. Classical physics was founded by Newton, when people hadn't recognized the phenomenon of diffraction of light. Although this theory was later invalidated by Eintein, we could not assert that Classical physics is of little value due to its contribution to science and technology advancement. Therefore scientists are theorizing on the basis of incomplete data.
[你引的那段Einstein的名言说的是人类知识的无止境，是否有利于用来说明搜集integral数据的impossible呢？知识和观察数据，嗯嗯，还是不太一样吧 :)]

Moreover, obtaining data for certain subjects is either difficult or impractical. Analytical mathematics works on the basis of pure numerology and reasoning, which has little to do with experiment.  In other word [words], data is not necessary for the development of theoretical mathematics. In addition, it is too difficult for astrological physicists to accumulate data. Even if some data is obtained, it is mostly inaccurate. Any advances in such areas are mostly based on scientists' imagination and speculation. Therefore it would be too importune to require any theorist to work with data.[importune是动词哦 看这样改行不行：Therefore it would appear demanding to require every theorist to gather data before theorizing]

In the final analysis, the speaker's assertion is partly true. Data is of great importance to scientists because almost any putative theory is based on data. However, we should realize the fact that scientists are always theorizing with incomplete data, due to the certain technology or intelligence limitations human have. We should also understand that specific areas of science do not require data to theorize.