[Big Fish]03月12日Issue184--By swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 576          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-3-11 19:39:44

      In the academic field, data comes to be a increasing important evidence in researches. It is contended that any theorizing before one has data is grave mistake. So far as I'm concerned, though I concede that oftentimes data is the most significant evidence in doing researches, I doubt that data may be not suitable and available in all kinds of researches. In other words, there is no black or white answer to this question.
     Admittedly, truly because of data, people could test their hypothesis, generate the natural laws, and find the links behind different subjects. Since data appears to be more object than human's inferences, the results got from data are usually perceived as most accurate and correct. For example, data helps the climate researchers to collect the information of climate change and make appropriate prediction to convenience people's life; data enables physics to test their theories by observing different subjects' movement which all generated by data; data helps doctors to test and do comparison between different medicines to design the most effective treating method, which saves life. Besides, data also contributes a lot in some social science fields. As to the economics study, the appearance of data provides economists a chance to do practical research. Before the use of data, scholars from different schools argued fiercely with each other and often ended in no result. Practical research becomes a general accepted standard through which economists could test their hypothesis; this also stimulates the set up of econometrics. Those vivid examples illustrate us that, because researches based on data are more reliable and convincible, data has become an indispensable part of most researches.
     However, it is hasty for us to rashly reach the conclusion that any theorizing before one has data is a grave mistake. We should notice that data is not always available to all fields (i.e., arts, literature, philosophy), and data is not always needed by those fields. For a specific example, philosophies do not need any data to make theory. Because they meditate some of the most abstract problems such as the origin of human beings, the meaning of existence or the identity of mankind, those issues could not be tested by data of theorized with data; thus data turns to be useless in those fields. However, we could not assert that all theories in philosophy or arts are grave mistakes. Take what mentioned above into consideration, we could accept the idea that despite without the support of data, theories in some certain fields should not be perceived as grave mistakes.
     What's more, even in some natural science fields, due to the limitation of facilities and tools, people couldn't always get the most significant data to support their theory. Thus, they have to make hypothesis and assumptions to complement the absence of data. Under such circumstances, we should not repudiate all of the assumptions because they are the fundamental of further researches. And sometimes those assumptions will be proved in the future with the help of data. For example, Maxwell's many hypotheses were proved to be right by his ascendants. Thus, it is inappropriate for us to deny all of the theories without proved by data.
     In conclusion, due to data is not always available to all range of fields and it is not needed in some kind of study, we could not research the hasty conclusion that any theorizing before one has data is a grave mistake. Instead, we should take different methods in different situations.

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

挺好的 只有一点点小错误 保持这样上考场应该是挺不错的文章~~