- UID
- 699485
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-7
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
79. Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
提纲：1.辩论确实能明确问题，开拓视角，启发新的思想，使我们更好地了解观点的价值。
2.辩论并不能有效地证实真理，更不能当作检验真理的唯一标准。
观点很可能受到辩手的善变能力的影响，所以胜出的观点未必有价值，而被放弃 观点也不一定没有价值；还有发现思想价值的其它方法。
3. 一个观点或者判断的价值在于其在多大程度上接近事实或真理，而这个价值的判断标准只能是实践，雄辩不等于真理。
字数：541 (写了好久，都收不住了)
With the explosive development of science and technology, people seek to promote the ideological level. The speaker above claims that it is the best way to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint for testing an argument. It seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion based on the reason that we can discover the value of an idea by defending it against the doubts and contrasting views. However, close scrutiny of the claim, rife with holes and faults, reveals this conclusion reached unpersuasively.
Admittedly, by being forced to defend an idea, one does clear the problem in the idea and have a more thorough understanding of the value. First, to clarify his/her idea, one must have a definite grasp of the idea. Besides, if he/she wants to convince others who have the opposite view, he/she should also explain the differences between the opposite opinions. In the process of clarifying, one would comprehend the profundity of the idea. Such as Roald Hoffmann and Philippe Hiberty, respectively, a quantum chemist and a organic chemist, they are both the founders of the Valence Bond Theory and the Molecular Orbital Theory, which are two opposite approaches to describing the bonding in molecules. They have argued with each other the soundness of the two theories since their establishment. And it is just because of their argument that they both consider the advantages and disadvantages of the two theories so that we could have a more accurate understanding of the bonds in molecules.
However, argument could not substantiate the value of ideas effectively, let alone be the only standard to test the value. Whether an idea could beat the other mostly depends on the defenders’ pleading ability. A defender with a strong capability is more likely to convince others with his idea, nevertheless, it does not present his idea is the truth. Similarly, the forgone idea may have its value but without admission. In addition, there are many other methods to discover the value of that idea, such as examining relational materials, visiting the museum, or introspection and so on. For instance, by examining the materials or visiting the relational museum, one would obtain the irrefutable evidence to support or disprove an idea, which seems more warranted than debate. Then after a deep introspection, one would discover the value that he/she once has not followed. Based on the foregoing substantiation, we could clearly find that argument is not the only way to discover the value of an idea.
Factually, even though the reason above is verified, the conclusion is unconvincing. The value of an idea or a judgment lies in the extent how close to the truth and the criterion to determine it is just practice. Perhaps experts in the art of eloquent speech could always succeed in the argument, but eloquence is not equivalent to the truth. Just as the perpetual motivate engine , once so many scholars have defended it, but it proves impossible in practice. An idea, even if proves perfectly on theory, has no value if it is guaranteed unlikely in practice.
In summary, it is plausible to discover the value of that idea by argument, however, the only standard to substantiate the idea is to practise. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-1 22:31:23
收藏
收藏
楼主
