ISSUE184 理论数据孰轻孰重

xiemeng2370UID：2749773

Is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data? If we affirm this abstract question, it may means that a valid and correct theory could only be found after comprehensively and completely searching a pile of data. However, I do not fully agree with this extreme contention as the speaker claims. While it would be tempting to concede that an accurate and persuasive theory should and must have many cogent and convincing data to support. But the pinpoint usage of data is prove or disprove the theory but not wholly research them before theorize. In fact, there indeed exist a myriad of great and successful theories were just worked out by scientists or even common people’s occasional discoveries. Moreover, it is unrealistic to thoroughly sum up correlative data before promote some theories due to the limitation of technology or mentality. Therefore, even if it may bring some mistakes to theorize before one has data, we do not need to expressly consider those undiscovered mistakes but sacrificed the significant breakthrough it may make, let along whether the mistakes will be taken or not is uncharted. In short, we have no need to collect undue data before theorizing, but must use cogent data to support the theory and beg great mistakes as far as possible.

To begin with, no theory could convince any people without reasonable and persuasive data to support; accordingly, data is crucial and indispensable to theory. An interested story about Einstein could exactly demonstrate the standpoint. Since he deduced a great theory about quantum light hypothesis, which on the basis of mathematical formulas, he did not admit this theory but only called it hypothesis, and even claimed that it is his biggest failure in the whole lifetime. What's the reason behind it? It is just because Einstein did not discover any further strong data to verify it and he even did not convinced himself by the data. This case could demonstrate that even people as great as Einstein who deduced a theory without tenable data also cannot be convinced, let alone others. After all, unrealistic theory without any data is easy to make grave mistake. For that reason, scholars and scientists should support persuasive data to prove their theory.

However, before the theory has been formed, how can people scrutinize whether it is true or false? The judgment about the theory also need to thoroughly understand it but not on the basis of subjective and even prejudiced opinions. While it would be tempting to concede that without any data, the theory may be wrong. For example, the fantastic geocentric theory of the Universe, which was just launched by the religious church but they had no precise data to theorize, is wholly wrong. But a pinpoint is that this unrealistic theory was proved unreasonable based on persuasive and substantial data eventually. Were the theory not declared by churches, how could others retort it? So, the most important thing about theory is not to collect data before establishing it, but to gather data to further support it after creating it. Only after a theory has been found could we judge its correctness.

Moreover, it is not practical to gather data before theorizing for whole theory. Many theories may not collect data and evidence due to the limitation of technology in temporary. Thus, if scholars and scientists have to theorize after finding sufficient data, many great inventions may be killed in the baby-basket. For instance, the invention of steam engine was just due to Watt's occasional observation of the hot water propel the lid. Does he really need to collect a plethora of data to prove his novel idea and found a systematical theory before invent the steam engine? If that, we might still leave in a Stone Age without convenience and advanced power. Even if this engine fail to invent, is it really matter? It is always said that no success could make before any mistake be taken. So, the theory is just bravely built, no matter with or without substantive data.

In conclusion, I agree with the speaker’s claim insofar as some theories just based on impractical idea would make grave mistakes. However, before the theory is found, nobody could judge it and no one could predict what mistake it may make. Moreover, the most vital usage of data is to prove the theory, but not to theorize. After all, many successful theories just invented from their first inspiration but not precise data.

qyr1987UID：2754639

Is it a grave mistake to theorize before one has data? If we affirm this abstract question, it may means that a valid and correct theory could only be found after comprehensively and completely searching a pile of data. However, I do not fully agree with this extreme contention as the speaker claims. While it would be tempting to concede that an accurate and persuasive theory should and must has many cogent and convincing data to support. But the pinpoint usage of data is（to） prove or（to） disprove the theory but（转折再转折？） not wholly research them before theorize（这句话理解起来稍有困难）. In fact, there indeed exist a myriad of great and successful theories were just worked out by scientists or even common people’s occasional discovery. Moreover, it is unrealistic to thoroughly sum up correlative data before promote some theories due to the limitation of technology or mentality. Therefore, even if it may bring some mistakes to theorize before one has data, we do not need to expressly consider those undiscovered mistakes but sacrificed the significant breakthrough it may make, let along whether the mistakes will be taken or not is uncharted. In short, we have no need to collect undue data before theorizing, but must use cogent data to support the theory and beg great mistakes as far as possible.（第一段稍显罗嗦，其实观点可以放第二段作为第一意群段嘛）

To begin with, no theory could convince any people without reasonable and persuasive data to support, so that data is crucial and indispensable to theory. For example, an interested（interesting） story about Einstein could exactly demonstrate the standpoint. Since he deduced a great theory about quantum light hypothesis, which on the basis of mathematical formulas, he did not admit this theory but only called it hypothesis, and even claimed that it is his most failure among the whole lifetime. What's the reason behind it? It is just because Einstein did not discover any further strong data to verify it and he even did not convinced himself by the data. This case could demonstrate that even as great as Einstein who deduce a theory without tenable data also cannot be convinced, let alone others.（这个例子举得好） After all, unrealistic theory without any data is easy to make grave mistake.（感觉稍欠解释） For that reason, scholars and scientists should support persuasive data to prove their theory.

However, before the theory has been formed, how could people scrutinize whether it is true or false? The judgment about the theory also need to thoroughly understand it but not on the basis of subjective and even personal opinion. （这句话怎么读起来怪怪的？）While it would be tempting to concede that without any data, the theory may be wrong. Such as the fantastic geocentric theory of universe, which just launched by religious church but they had no precise data to theorize, is wholly wrong. But a pinpoint is that this unrealistic theory was proved unreasonable based on persuasive data eventually. Were the theory not declared by churches, how can others retort it? So, the most important thing about theory is not to collect data before establishing, but to gather data to further support it after creating. Only after a theory has been found could we judge its correctness.

Moreover, many theories may not gather data and evidence due to the limitation of technology in temporary. Thus, if scholars and scientists have to theorize after finding sufficient data, many great inventions may be stifled in the cradle. For instance, the invention of steam engine was just due to Watt's occasional observation of the hot water propel the lid. Does he need to collect a plethora of data to prove his novel idea and found a systematical theory before invent the steam engine? If that, we may still live without convenience and advanced power. Even if this engine fail to invent, is it really matter? It is always said that no success could make before any mistake be taken. So, the theory is just bravely built, no matter with or without substantive data.

In conclusion, I agree with the speaker’s claim insofar as some theories just based on impractical idea would make grave mistakes. However, before the theory is found, nobody could judge it and no one could predict what mistake it will make. Moreover, the most vital usage of data is to prove the theory, but not to restrictedly theorize. After all, many successful theories just invented from their first inspiration but not precise data.

不知道为什么读起来很奇怪，你的观点不能说没道理，可是感觉后面两段缺乏解释，不能一步步的明白你的想法

xiemeng2370UID：2749773

2# qyr1987
啊~你的意见真好~我已经改了一部分了~
可是还是觉得不能有力的证明我的观点~
哎~苦啊╮(╯▽╰)╭