2. 职称英语
  3. As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more

游客2024-01-12  6
问题 As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
选项
答案     We live in an era of knowledge explosion: hundreds and thousands of research articles are being published each day and we now have access to more knowledge than our predecessors could possibly imagine. How does the accumulation of knowledge shape our understanding of the world around us? One would naturally expect that more knowledge could better shed light on mysteries and enigmas, but some people claim that things actually become more complex and mysterious as more knowledge is acquired. From my point of view, within the existing knowledge framework it is true that more knowledge makes things more comprehensible, provided that the previous understanding is correct. When the new discoveries fundamentally change the existing framework of comprehension, however, things do appear more complex and mysterious as a result of such new knowledge.
    To begin with, I agree that within the frame of existing knowledge, more knowledge is conducive to a better comprehension. This is because the broader frame of knowledge remains the same, so new discoveries do not raise new questions. For example, scholars in the ancient Greece have been painfully debating on the nature of the movement of celestial bodies. It was not understood why fruits would fall from trees in autumn, but stars always shine in the night sky. Then came Sir Isaac Newton. The three laws of motion named after him provide a satisfactory explanation to the aforementioned observations. One could confidently argue that the new knowledge discovered by Newton gave rise to a much clearer and more thorough understanding of an object’s motion.
    The lines of reasoning and the example cited above do prove that in some cases new knowledge makes things more comprehensible, but there is one unspoken prerequisite: existing understanding cannot be totally wrong and becomes contradictory to new discoveries. If this very prerequisite is not met, one could imagine the confusion brought about by the clash of information. A case in point here is human beings’ quest for understanding Earth’s place in the universe. Due to its appealing religious interpretations, geocentricism has long dominated people’s perception until the Copernicus offer a heliocentric alternative. Copernicus’s model, based on diligent observations of celestial movement, shocked his contemporaries. All of a sudden Earth’s place became more complex and inscrutable, but in hindsight we could attribute this confusion to the faulty understanding of the geocentric model. Hence, new knowledge could indeed make things appear more mysterious and complex if at odds with existing knowledge that is based on inaccurate understanding.
    Finally, the discussion above hinges on one important premise: the framework of knowledge is preserved throughout the acquiring of knowledge. Yet in reality many discoveries shook such framework, and it becomes an inevitable consequence that the emergence of new, foreign information makes things less comprehensible. Two examples could strengthen my point here. Since early human beings started using stones and forging metals, we have been studying the property of materials and accumulated a considerable amount of knowledge. Yet, progresses in nano-technology in the 1980s discovered a surprising series of properties that cannot be explained by existing theories, because on nano-scale materials obey a set of rules different from the traditional materials. Another example is the classification of life. Historically philosophers and biologists divided all living beings into animals and plants, but the microscope invented in the late 1500s led to the discovery of microorganisms. The existence of such previously invisible tiny living beings made people become greatly perplexed and realize the enormous complexity of life. To them, life suddenly became more mysterious and it forced scholars to come up with a new paradigm for life classification. These two examples demonstrate a field will appear to be much more complex and mysterious than previously thought in light of the discoveries that fundamentally reshape the knowledge framework.
    To sum up, when we acquire new knowledge that is compatible with the framework of existing knowledge, things become more comprehensible. That said, if the new knowledge is in direct contradiction to current know-how, or if the new knowledge represents a fundamental shift in the framework, things do appear more complex and mysterious. (681 words)
解析     本题是一篇“反直觉”的题目，通常在我们的理念中，新的知识应该是让我们的世界越来越清晰易懂，但本题却提出了一个反向的观点：新的知识让世界变得更加神秘和难懂。面对这种违背人们直觉的论断，我们更要静下心来思考。具体到本题而言，新的知识究竟怎样改造了我们对世界的认知?这要取决于新的知识究竟是补充性(complementary)的还是颠覆性的。
    很显然，如果新的知识是颠覆性的(如本文第三主旨段所说)，推翻了原有的认知世界的框架和知识体系，那它当然会带来困惑与不解，因为我们更好地认识到了世界的复杂性。这里要提醒读者注意的一点是，有的同学可能会认为这是一种“不可知论”，但事实上并非如此，颠覆性的知识给我们展示的是世界的复杂性，但世界的本质没有改变。换言之，客观世界仍然是那个客观世界，但是新知识让我们看到了更多。按照这个思路继续推论，人类也许会有彻底认清世界的那一天，只有在那个我们对世间万物已经无所不知、无所不晓的时刻，我们才可以说新知识再也不会带来更多的困惑和神秘。对此，笔者推荐大家去阅读著名科幻作家阿西莫夫的小说《最后的问题》(The Last Question)，思考当有一天人类穷尽了所有的问题，走入了时间的尽头，宇宙和智慧生命将以何种姿态存在。
    现在再让我们回到“补充性”的知识这一栏，正如本文第一和第二主旨段所说的那样，如果新的知识和信息不与现有的认知体系相冲突，又会有什么结果呢?本文认为这要看新旧知识之间是否存在矛盾与冲突，具体来说，得看过去的认知是否正确。如果我们过去的认知是错误的，显然新的知识会带来(短暂的)混乱。当然，我们要承认从更长远的角度来说，补充性的知识也会让世界变得更加易懂，因为错误的认识会被正确的认知所取代，如同地心说被日心说取代，而日心说被当代的宇宙学取代一样。结合上面所述知识的最终边界，这暗示本题另一种破题方法是短期与长期，读者不妨试试从这个角度下笔，用本题来做一个写作训练。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3356925.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)