Issue36 寄托4人组 8.16作业

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Issue36
The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.       

1．        经验科学因为需要经受时间的检验（反例的出现），所以greatness常常需要后人来检验。
2．        人文学科、艺术领域不存在这个问题。他们的Greatness不随时间退色。后人也没有前人在评判上的优势。


Who are the best judges of individuals' greatness--those living after them, or their contemporaries? The speaker chooses the former. As far as I am concerned, however, this question needs to be answered case by case, since due to the distinct nature of different fields, answer might be quite opposite.

To begin with, in the realm of empirical sciences, such as physics, biology, chemistry, etc., time will tell the best answer. Empirical sciences is a realm based on observation and experiments. Scientists first have to collect data, classify them, make numerous experiments, and finally draw their general conclusion. The validity of their theories can be justified only after numerous trials. A paradox often confronts scientists, however, is that although their conclusion can be supported by the empirical evidence in their laboratories and gain recognition of contemporary science community, yet with the development of technology and the extension of human activity, new empirical data as counterexamples could always appear and disprove their theory. The history of scientific discovery just abounds with such cases. Aristotle, for instance, being recognized as the greatest scientist at his time and his theory continuously dominant the next a thousand years, had been proven to be wrong in most fields since the Renaissance. Newton’s classic mechanics, the prevailing theory after Aristotle’s, has been found limitation by Einstein. Although in our time Einstein's theory of relativity has won widely approval, yet one day it might show its own flaws by new evidence as well. Just as the famous philosopher of science, Popper, put (and I paraphrase), "History of science is just a history of old theories being disproved."  People living after these scientists, owning the advantage to get access to more empirical evidence, thus can make a better judgment on scientists.

The realm of humanities, e.g., philosophy, literature, arts, on the other hand, has nothing to do with future counterexamples, and thus figures in this area can be well judged by their contemporaries. Humanities often deal with the transcendental fields, talking about the meaning of life, the existence of God, and the esthetic taste of beauty, where the later generations have no more advantages than their predecessors, for these topics rarely bear “right answers” that can be objectively justified.    Take the example of Aristotle again. His scientific theories have been proven wrong; yet Aristotle’s wisdom and insightful thoughts in his Metaphysics, Politics, etc., is not fading as time goes by. No philosopher after him can proudly claim that he proves Aristotle is wrong; neither can one living today say Aristotle’s essay on friendship is outdated. The glamour of humanities just lies in their everlasting value, which can be appreciated both by the contemporaries of those giants and by people living after them.

In the final analysis, whether their contemporaries or predecessors can make the better judgment depends on what field a figure belongs to. I did not discuss several counterexamples in this essay, such as the stories of Copernicus and Van Gogh, both of whom owned little recognition in their life. The reason why they suffer from that might be complicated, such as the prejudice of their society and failure to communicate with their community. Yet generally speaking, due to the distinct nature of the two realms, people should not make hasty choice as the speaker does.      
549 words.

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Issue36 寄托4人组 8.16作业

Issue36
The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.        

1．        经验科学因为需要经受时间的检验（反例的出现），所以greatness常常需要后人来检验。
2．        人文学科、艺术领域不存在这个问题。他们的Greatness不随时间退色。后人也没有前人在评判上的优势。


Who are the best judges of individuals' greatness--those living after them, or their contemporaries? The speaker chooses the former. As far as I am concerned, however, this question needs to be answered case by case, since due to the distinct nature of different fields, answer might be quite opposite.

To begin with, in the realm of empirical sciences, such as physics, biology, chemistry, etc., time will tell the best answer. Empirical sciences is a realm based on observation and experiments. Scientists first have to collect data, classify them, make numerous experiments, and finally draw their general conclusion. The validity of their theories can be justified only after numerous trials. A paradox often confronts scientists, however, is that although their conclusion can be supported by the empirical evidence in their laboratories and gain recognition of? contemporary science community, yet with the development of technology and the extension of human activity, new empirical data as counterexamples could always appear and disprove their theory. The history of scientific discovery just abounds with such cases. Aristotle, for instance, being recognized as the greatest scientist at his time and his theory continuously dominant the next a thousand years, had been proven to be wrong in most fields since the Renaissance. Newton’s classic mechanics, the prevailing theory after Aristotle’s, has been found limitation by Einstein. Although in our time Einstein's theory of relativity has won widely approval (approval widely?), yet one day it might show its own flaws by new evidence as well. Just as the famous philosopher of science, Popper, put (and I paraphrase), "History of science is just a history of old theories being disproved."  People living after these scientists, owning the advantage to get access to more empirical evidence, thus can make a better judgment on scientists.论证得不错！
Although…yet…用得比较多。

The realm of humanities, e.g., philosophy, literature, arts, on the other hand, has nothing to do with future counterexamples, and thus figures in this area can be well judged by their contemporaries. Humanities often deal with the transcendental fields, talking about the meaning of life, the existence of God, and the esthetic taste of beauty, where the later generations have no more advantages than their predecessors, for these topics rarely bear “right answers” that can be objectively justified. Take the example of Aristotle again. His scientific theories have been proven wrong; yet Aristotle’s wisdom and insightful thoughts in his Metaphysics, Politics, etc., is not fading as time goes by. No philosopher after him can proudly claim that he proves Aristotle is wrong; neither can one living today say Aristotle’s essay on friendship is outdated. The glamour of humanities just lies in their everlasting value, which can be appreciated both by the contemporaries of those giants and by people living after them.

In the final analysis, whether their contemporaries or predecessors can make the better judgment depends on what field a figure belongs to. I did not discuss several counterexamples in this essay, such as the stories of Copernicus and Van Gogh, both of whom owned little recognition in their life. The reason why they suffer from that might be complicated, such as the prejudice of their society and failure to communicate with their community. (貌似多余) Yet generally speaking, due to the distinct nature of the two realms, people should not make hasty choice as the speaker does.

总评：
你论证很好的支持了你的观点。Humanities里面可以再添一两个例子。另外，至于Copernicus和Van Gogh的事情可否添到上面两段里面做个让步？

我可能有说得不对的地方，仅供参考！

[ Last edited by bridgewalker on 2005-8-16 at 18:57 ]

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Roger!

凡高确实可以放到上一段。最初想的是单用一段来说的他的情况，但作为一段太单薄了，又觉得不提也不合适，毕竟这个例子太有名了。嗯，改的时候放在上一段结尾带一下。