“Scientific theories, which most people consider as ‘fact,’ almost invariably
prove to be inaccurate. Thus, one should look upon any information described
as ‘factual’ with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future.”
At face value, the belief that “one should look upon any information described as
‘factual’ with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future,” seems
ludicrous almost to the point of threatening anarchy. Yet not only does this belief
prove well justified, it is also the linchpin around which our complex, highly technical
society creates and consolidates its advances.
Science itself provides the best evidence and examples in support of this statement.
One need look no further than contemporary medicine to see how far we have
come from the days when illness was perceived as a sign of moral weakness or as
a punishment from on high. In fact, the most outstanding characteristic of what
we call “the scientific method” amounts to endless questioning of received theory
in search of a more comprehensive explanation of what we perceive to be true. This
iterative style of inquiry (and re-inquiry) perpetuates an ongoing scientific dialogue
that catalyzes further breakthroughs in the developed world.
Furthermore, advances made through constant questioning are not limited to the
scientific arena: The skeptical attitudes of ancient Greek philosophers, as well as
those of Renaissance mariners, 19th century suffragists, and 20th century civil
rights activists, have left the world a richer and more hopeful place. By refusing to
accept the world as explained by contemporary “fact,” these doubters helped give
birth to societies and cultures in which human potential and accomplishment have
been enabled to an unprecedented degree.
In contrast, those societies that cultivate adherence to received belief and a
traditional non-skeptical approach have advanced very little over the centuries.
In Tibet, for instance, the prayer wheels spin endlessly around a belief system as
secure and unquestioning as the Himalayas themselves. While there may very well
be things worth learning from such a society, Tibet has proven to lack adaptability
and expansiveness and prefers to turn inward, away from the modern world. Such
introspection has given Tibet neither immunity nor an array of defenses in the face
of contemporary medical, social, and political problems. Thus, cultural inflexibility
regarding received wisdom and convention comes with a price.
To conclude, it seems clear from the above discussion that a healthy skepticism
remains the hallmark of Western epistemology as we face the future. A close look at
the statement reveals that it is not advocating the wholesale rejection of orthodox
thinking, but rather that we be open to redefining our assumptions. As the basis of
our resiliency and creativity, this attitude offers the most positive prognosis for a
society that revels in the solution of conundrums that its own constant questioning
brings continually into view.
- Rembrandt's Portrait 73
- “Scientific theories, which most people consider as ‘fact,’ almost invariablyprove to be inaccurate. Thus, one should look upon any information describedas ‘factual’ with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future.” 82
- A teacher’s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught.Use specifc reasons and examples to support your answer. Be sure to use your own words. Do not use memorized examples 60
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 50
- It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 84, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...t may well be proven false in the future,' seems ludicrous almost to the point o...
^^^^^^
Line 20, column 57, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
... as explained by contemporary 'fact,' these doubters helped give birth to s...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, look, may, regarding, so, thus, well, while, for instance, in contrast, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2477.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 437.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66819221968 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2229169603 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610983981693 0.4932671777 124% => OK
syllable_count: 749.7 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2266270885 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.8125 118.986275619 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.3125 23.4991977007 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4375 5.21951772744 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 36.0 4.97078651685 724% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336254080023 0.243740707755 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0871557205034 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.156018887616 0.0758088955206 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0590731549939 0.150359130593 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.130018652929 0.0667264976115 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 14.1392134831 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.1639044944 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.29 8.38706741573 123% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.7820224719 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.