It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.
The author claims that it is a fault to have a theory without data. In my view, this claim is too extreme and unfairly ignores other aspects of theories that are lack of data.
I concede that it is more persuasive that a theory having potent data to support it. The nature of a theory is to understand the phenomena and therefore provide us with ability to maneuver and predict future events. If there are no any substantial data to uphold a theory, it is hard for people to trust the power of a theory. Also, if a theory having precise data supported it, the probability that the theory is fault can be low. For example, in the ancient time, the quack usually treated patients with their suspicious method, it is hard for people trust them without successful cases that they have cured people.
However, there still have other reasons to deem that a pure theory is useful. First, an imaginative theory can pave the road for descendants to conduct further exploration, wether or not it will be proved to be true or false. On one hand, a successful scientific research is usually depended on persevering of trial-an-error. Even though a preconceived theory is subverted by future evidences, it still has its contribution. After all, it helps scientists eliminate a possible faulty road, so that they can modify or conceive other way to solve their problems in the future without step into the same faulty road in this “imaginative theory. On the other, many correct theories are substantiated by concrete data that discovered in the future. For example, Einstein’s general relativity, at first, is merely derived by pure assumptions. It predicts that the light nearby the sun will be distorted by the gravity of the sun. Although this revolutionary and pure theory is suspected by many people, the phenomena of light distortion is observed from the sophisticated instrument subsequently.
Furthermore, a theory is valuable because it is the product of humans. Imagination is one precious possession of human beings, and the inventing a pure theory is the manifestation of the ability. Just like the invention of artists- painting, sculptures, and literatures, a pure theory is also a brainchild of a maven. No matter it have practical purposes or not, it is valuable for us to preserve and encourage people to excavate their imaginative abilities.
To sum up, although a theory with compelling data is more practical and has more probability to be proved as correct, it is unjustifiable to say that a theory without data is a mistake. Whether or not a theory be proved true or false, it still have contribution for human society.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-05 | afeezbadmus767@ | 50 | view |
| 2020-06-23 | jj2824d | 16 | view |
| 2020-06-23 | jj2824d | 16 | view |
| 2018-09-06 | Antony Urmise Jose | 58 | view |
| 2016-09-22 | keshav | 50 | view |
- The study of history has value only to the extent that it is relevant to our daily lives 87
- In this age of intensive media coverage it is no longer possible for a society to regard any woman or man as a hero The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished 79
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Parents today are more involved in their children s education than were parents in the past Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society s past but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes In such situations modern development sho 50
- Most people choose a career on the basis of such pragmatic considerations as the needs of the economy the relative ease of finding a job and the salary they can expect to make Hardly anyone is free to choose a career based on his or her natural talents or 62
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...and predict future events. If there are no any substantial data to uphold a theory...
^^
Line 5, column 240, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[5]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'successful scientific research'.
Suggestion: successful scientific research
...roved to be true or false. On one hand, a successful scientific research is usually depended on persevering of t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 622, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '”' seems to be missing
... step into the same faulty road in this “imaginative theory. On the other, many c...
^
Line 7, column 332, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'has'?
Suggestion: has
...o a brainchild of a maven. No matter it have practical purposes or not, it is valuab...
^^^^
Line 9, column 187, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'Whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: Whether
...hat a theory without data is a mistake. Whether or not a theory be proved true or false, it st...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 245, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'has'?
Suggestion: has
...heory be proved true or false, it still have contribution for human society.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, still, therefore, after all, for example, in my view, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2200.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 445.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94382022472 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96466928709 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489887640449 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 715.5 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.3928350661 60.3974514979 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.0 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2272727273 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04545454545 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0756068818946 0.243740707755 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0286374591893 0.0831039109588 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0350589425107 0.0758088955206 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0550742766437 0.150359130593 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0221648689222 0.0667264976115 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.