24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

syy2468

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 1281
帖子: 605
在线: 95.8小时
虫号: 640344

[交流] 北美范文-感觉这篇与题目不对应啊

The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people.

The speaker claims that great advances in knowledge necessarily involve rejection of authority. To the extent that political authority impedes such advances, I agree with this claim. Otherwise, in my view most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority, rather than rejecting authority out of hand.

One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries the official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the Earth's age is determined to be about 6,000 years. If Western thinkers had continued to yield to the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would never have advanced beyond the blind acceptance of this contention as fact.

A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of its scientists' research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in research that the state viewed as a potential threat to its power and authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.
However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry, great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of "authority." A good example involves modern computer technology. Only by building on, or embracing, certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semi-conductor technology. Although new biotechnology research suggests that organic, biochemical processors will replace artificial semi-conductors as the computers of the future, it would be inappropriate to characterize this leap in knowledge as a rejection of authority.
In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my observation advances in knowledge more typically embrace and build on authoritative scientific principles and laws, and do not require the rejection of any type of authority.

北美范文COPY下来的，怎么感觉文章与题目不太对应啊，还是我太菜了。

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

1楼 2012-05-21 14:36:32

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

wyr1989

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.198
金币: 15289.6
帖子: 1018
在线: 518.6小时
虫号: 1458840

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

同感啊，讲的是政府压制科学艺术，控制他们的发展方向。
并没有提到大众福利。。。。。

赞一下

回复此楼

3楼2012-05-22 09:25:29

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

syy2468

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 1281
帖子: 605
在线: 95.8小时
虫号: 640344

是不对的，我已找到对应的官方文章了
Does a nation's greatness lie in the general welfare of its people rather than in the achievements of its artists, rulers, and scientists, as the speaker claims? I find this claim problematic in two respects. First, it fails to define "general welfare." Second, it assumes that the sorts of achievements that the speaker cites have little to do with a nation's general welfare--when in fact they have everything to do with it.
At first blush the speaker's claim might appear to have considerable merit. After all, the overriding imperative for any democratic state is to enhance the general welfare of its citizenry. Yet the speaker fails to provide a clear litmus test for measuring that welfare. When we speak of "promoting the general welfare," the following aims come to mind: public health and safety, security against military invasions, individual autonomy and freedom, cultural richness, and overall comfort--that is, a high standard of living. Curiously, it is our scientists, artists, and political leaders-----or so-called "rulers" who by way of their achievements bring these aims into fruition. Thus, in order to determine what makes a nation great it is necessary to examine the different sorts of individual achievements that ostensibly promote these aims.
Few would disagree that many scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation's general welfare. Advances in the health sciences have enhanced our physical well-being, comfort, and life span. Advances in technology have enabled us to travel to more places, communicate with more people from different walks of life, and learn about the world from our desktops. Advances in physics and engineering make our abodes and other buildings safer, and enable us to travel to more places, and to travel to more distant places, with greater safety and speed. Artistic achievement is also needed to make a nation a better place for humans overall. Art provides inspiration, lifts the human spirit, and incites our creativity and imagination, all of which spur us on to greater accomplishments and help us appreciate our own humanity. Yet the achievements of scientists and artists, while integral, do not suffice to ensure the welfare of a nation's citizens. In order to survive, let alone be great, a nation must be able to defend its borders and to live peaceably with other nations. Thus the military and diplomatic accomplishments of a nation's leaders provide an integral contribution to the general welfare of any nation's populace.
Notwithstanding the evidence that, in the aggregate, individual achievements of the sorts listed above are what promote a nation's general welfare, we should be careful not to hastily assume that a nation is necessarily great merely by virtue of the achievements of individual citizens. Once having secured the safety and security of its citizens, political rulers must not exploit or oppress those citizens. Also, the populace must embrace and learn to appreciate artistic accomplishment, and to use rather than misuse or abuse scientific knowledge. Of particular concern are the many ways in which scientific achievements have served to diminish our quality of life, thereby impeding the general welfare. It is through scientific "achievements" that chemicals in our food, water, and air increase the incidence and variety of cancers; that our very existence as a species is jeopardized by the threat of nuclear warfare; and that greenhouse gases which deplete our ozone layer and heat the Earth's atmosphere threaten civilization itself.
In sum, in asserting that general welfare--and neither the scientific, artistic, nor political achievements of individuals--provides the yardstick for measuring a nation's greatness, the speaker misses the point that general welfare is the end product of individual achievements. Besides, achievements of artists, scientists, and political leaders rarely inure only to one particular nation. Rather, these achievements benefit people the world over.
Accordingly, by way of these achievements the world, not just one nation, grows in its greatness.

赞一下

回复此楼

4楼2012-05-22 11:18:19

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖