Much of the information that people assume as 'factual' actually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus, any piece of information referred to as a 'fact' should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
Imagine a hypothetical situation: two physics students are friends. One friend doubts every facts, and the second accepts the well established facts, however, he tries to explore and research more on those issues continuously. The question in front of us is, which student's approach do we regard better? While some critics might accept the former furnishing their own logics and reasons, but I prefer the approach followed by later one. Therefore, in this context, my cut-and-dried position is that doubting every facts is a wrong, or counterproductive, approach while the better method is to accept these facts and continue further research and studies on the related realm. Following are the reasons to shore up my opinion.
Firstly, and probably most importantly, doubting every facts hinders the scientific research; it is harmful to scientific advancement. However, on other hand, there are several good examples where scientists accepted their predecessor's idea, continued to do research and, finally, found something new - or refuted the same theory upon which their research was based. Take special theory of relativity, as example. For long, Newtonian mechanics - also called classical mechanics - was very useful in many fields like study of velocity and speed, work and energy, and defining law of force. However, later in 1905, Einstein proposed Theory of Special relativity which refuted the Newtonian mechanics when particle moves at a speed of light. This theory revolutionized the modern science. Today, this world used clean nuclear energy which is the result of this theory of special relativity. In this way, some new and extra information were discovered from previous fact by its careful study; this was not resulted merely due to absurd disbelieve over the Newtonian mechanics.
Furthermore, time is dynamic; it moves with its own natural speed. Along with the flow of time, several primitive ideas gets refined, or sophisticated, mainly due to human curiosity, rather than due to mere disbelieve. During primitive age, human used to believe that its behavior is ultimately controlled by some supreme god; however, on medieval era, people started believing its behavior is due to the fluctuation of body hormones, or fluids. Finally, today, we believe that human demeanor is a function of international physical force (nature) and upbringings together with the external environment (nurture). This sophistication in thinking is not only due to skepticism over the so called 'facts', rather it is due to the fact that they tried to study on detail. Scientists intended to know the reason what actually controls their own behavior.
Finally, some critics might argue that we should doubt every facts, for it encourage us to carryout research on those fields. However, my question to them is what if we started doubting sun is not the center of the solar system. It will be our regressive move: we will be in 15th century if we said so because until that century everyone used to believe that it is earth, not the sun, which is the center of the solar system. With the effort of Copernicus, Galileo and finally Newton, it was proved that it is sun around which all the masses of solar system revolve. Hence, doubting everything may make us regressive as well.
To recapitulate, it is clear - and consolidated too - from the above arguments that merely disbelieving the established facts is not a better way of bringing scientific advancement; it is a preposterous idea, in fact. What an educated and well appraised person should do is to study facts and start to do own research and study on it. It will refine true human knowledge and helps in the sophistication of the contemporary science.
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the 40
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your 53
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. 16
- The director of a large group of hospitals recommends to supply UltraClean, an extra strength lequid hand soap, to prevent serious infections in his hospital system. In order to shore up his recommendation, he has given the example of hospital in Worktown 70
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of movie-rental stores."In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten movie-rental stores. Since we are famou 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 480, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nics - also called classical mechanics - was very useful in many fields like stud...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'while', 'in fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.219796215429 0.240241500013 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.155749636099 0.157235817809 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.103347889374 0.0880659088768 117% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0596797671033 0.0497285424764 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0538573508006 0.0444667217837 121% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0975254730713 0.12292977631 79% => OK
Participles: 0.0349344978166 0.0406280797675 86% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.84611131879 2.79330140395 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0291120815138 0.030933414821 94% => OK
Particles: 0.00145560407569 0.0016655270985 87% => OK
Determiners: 0.0829694323144 0.0997080785238 83% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0116448326055 0.0249443105267 47% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0174672489083 0.0148568991511 118% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3717.0 2732.02544248 136% => OK
No of words: 606.0 452.878318584 134% => OK
Chars per words: 6.13366336634 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96155895361 4.58838876751 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.391089108911 0.366273622748 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.288778877888 0.280924506359 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.221122112211 0.200843997647 110% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.112211221122 0.132149295362 85% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84611131879 2.79330140395 102% => OK
Unique words: 314.0 219.290929204 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518151815182 0.48968727796 106% => OK
Word variations: 65.5831120973 55.4138127331 118% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6194690265 136% => OK
Sentence length: 21.6428571429 23.380412469 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.7204182562 59.4972553346 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.75 141.124799967 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6428571429 23.380412469 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.607142857143 0.674092028746 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 50.5207449316 51.4728631049 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.30810810811 1.64882698954 79% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24772647984 0.391690518653 63% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0991186189562 0.123202303941 80% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0856081923025 0.077325440228 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.467129077309 0.547984918172 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159565885161 0.149214159877 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0895062323009 0.161403998019 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0410860689684 0.0892212321368 46% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.350507315181 0.385218514788 91% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0392453794613 0.0692045440612 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169161126969 0.275328986314 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0356473814435 0.0653680567796 55% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.4325221239 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.30420353982 132% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88274336283 123% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.66592920354 136% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 13.5995575221 162% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.