|
Issue 23
"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
這個(gè)題目分析起來(lái)是說(shuō)學(xué)術(shù)目的的。作為一個(gè)scholar / researcher，應(yīng)該考慮的是自己感興趣的領(lǐng)域所在而不是考慮他們的研究成果是否對(duì)整個(gè)大社會(huì)大環(huán)境有貢獻(xiàn)。這個(gè)題目第一眼看起來(lái)似乎是有理的，但是想到很多時(shí)候很多科學(xué)家的成果實(shí)際是無(wú)意義的。美國(guó)不是有一個(gè)搞笑諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)嗎？就是獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)類似的研究的。雖然也是科學(xué)成果但是根本就沒(méi)有實(shí)際操作的價(jià)值或者對(duì)人類或者對(duì)社會(huì)根本就沒(méi)有意義的。
但是這個(gè)contribution在某些時(shí)候也可以引申到名利方面。從這個(gè)方面來(lái)講，這個(gè)題目是可以成立的。
對(duì)這個(gè)題目進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的分析，可以看出來(lái)題目里面有一個(gè)比較，非常明顯的比較，由more帶出來(lái)的，所以我們可以說(shuō)這個(gè)speaker的觀點(diǎn)是很明顯地表明了自己是支持哪個(gè)方面的。
Should academic scholars and researchers be free to pursue whatever avenues of inquiry and research that interest them, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic, as the speaker asserts? Or should they strive instead to focus on those areas that are most likely to benefit society?
拿問(wèn)句來(lái)起頭，來(lái)質(zhì)疑。脫離出了一般的解釋題目的開(kāi)頭。雖然不是很特別，但是還是讓人感覺(jué)比較的attractive。l strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons. 非常直白的陳述自己的觀點(diǎn)，同意speaker的觀點(diǎn)。
First of all，典型的連接詞，開(kāi)始陳述觀點(diǎn)了。Who is to decide which areas of academic inquiry are worthwhile? 又是一個(gè)問(wèn)句，但是這個(gè)問(wèn)句的作用和開(kāi)篇的問(wèn)句不同了，是引出來(lái)自己論證的第一個(gè)方面。Scholars cannot be left to decide. 自問(wèn)自答。
?????? Given a choice they will pursue their own idiosyncratic areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all scholars could reach a fully informed consensus as to what research areas would be most worthwhile. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what would be worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence renders them untrustworthy in any event.
兩個(gè)否定句非常干凈利索地說(shuō)出看法，沒(méi)人有能力來(lái)決定什么是應(yīng)該worth researching的。
Secondly, by human nature we are motivated to pursue those activities in which we excel. To compel scholars to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today‘s preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking —— 霍金我想就不用介紹了吧 —— to research the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole（夸張法）.Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world‘s scholars and researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation, a scholar would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field of study.
這個(gè)部分舉例說(shuō)明了，如果把學(xué)者或者科學(xué)家局限于某個(gè)特定的領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的話會(huì)也會(huì)局限其施展自己的talents，是資源的浪費(fèi)。而缺少動(dòng)力或者興趣，人也無(wú)法完全發(fā)揮自己的talents，用辨證的方法說(shuō)出interest和contribution二者的關(guān)系。
Thirdly, it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenues of inquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. Avenues of intellectual and scientific inquiry that break no new ground amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with unusual claims by scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant——that the sun lies at the center of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is terraforming —— creating biological life and habitable atmospheres where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society‘s pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?
（來(lái)源：網(wǎng)絡(luò)） |
