nsoonhui

091 Most people think that their deeply held values are the result of rational choice, but reason often has little to do with the way people form values. Value in this context can be defined as a set of belief a person is adhering to. For instance, Asians believe that the youngster should never challenge the authority. This sort of conviction earns itself a name call "Asian value", crystallized by Lee Kuan Yu, the Singapore's ex-Prime Minister. This topic asserts that most people do not pick their principle based on reasoning, even though they presumed so. I agree with it wholeheartedly. Most people just inherit their principle from their parents without critically dissecting it. Life is hectic, and thinking over accepted beliefs seems to be a tantalizing task for most of us. Most of us would not have the time nor the inclination to examine our dearly hold principle. Value is passed down from one generation to another mostly largely because of this. Most of us are too busy to care about such philosophical things. Take the much lauded Asian value as an example, how many Asians give some thought to it? Yes, Lee may be summarizing succinctly what Asians have been taught and what they believe, but his rhetoric has very little appeal outside the small academic circle. Asian students, businessmen and entrepreneurs just carry on with their works, unwilling to take a step back and ponder over the "Asian value". Certainly, reason has very little to do with why people form this or that set of values. If you ask them why they believe in the virtue of being submissive to the older ones, you will likely to get a blank stare. Besides that, challenging the precepts or the accepted tenets can be uncomfortable at times. Human has the tendency not to exercise their mental muscles over thoughts that would uproot their values. To most of us, pondering over our system of belief is dangerous because such action is opening door for heretical seeds to slip in. As a consequence, we just shut off our brain when our values are being called into question. Enthrallment of the black vividly illustrates this point. It doesn't take long and hard reasoning to conclude that slavery is evil, that selling other people's dignity is contrary to our universal conscience. Yet most people preferred to suppress their conscience and reasoning because they didn't want to form a new value, a value that is base on rational thinking and principle of love. We have the predilection to hold on to old beliefs, no matter how irrational it is. What is the consequence of such mental indifference? For starters, it encourages tyrannies and discourages sceptism. Tyrannies exert their control over their people by feeding them a set of values and penalizing the dissenters who dare to violate the given beliefs. Ancient China emperors called themselves the Chosen One and all Chinese had to have the value of following the emperors, even to their deaths. Such a value encouraged war and deprived the Chinese of their basic human rights for a few thousand years. China history would be rewritten if Chinese refused to accept the handed down values without proper securitization and discretion. To summarize, we can conclude that reasoning has generally very little to do with values forming. We are getting most of our principles directly from other without filtering them first. If we are willing to thinking a bit more on our belief and to change it if it is unreasonable, we will have a better society.

40. "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." Our society has the tendency to press the researchers for doing work that is beneficial. On the other hand, the research that has no immediate application will face a hard time in finding funds. I believe that scholars should pursue their individual interest without concerning whether their work will make an immediate impact to the world. Some might think that unusual and quirky interest should not be pursued for the fear that it has no practical value. They contend that research funds are scarce and the action of devoting a significant portion of the money to an unknown and untested idea is far from prudent. Why give money to the studies of quarks or superstring theory that would bring no commercial benefits? Why not use the money wisely by sponsoring the study of environment that is more pertinent to human survival? For starters, the research that seems to make no contribution to our society might turn out to be crucial in the future. When Newton wondered about the law of gravity 400 years ago, he did not know that our engineering technologies would freely make use of his brainchild. By similar token, When Francis and Clark pondered upon the structure of DNA, they never know that they were lying down the foundation of modern biotechnology that would change human lives forever. If the European government decided to shut down a physics laboratory called CERN for the reason that it did "useless" research in 60s or 70s, we would be missing the internet technology. We couldn't foresee the future and thus we cannot judge whether a research project is impractical, for it might blossom in the future and revolutionize the world. It is not possible to dictate what scholars should do and what should not. The enterprise of doing research is driven mainly by interest but not money or other external factors. A brilliant quantum theorist who is asked to give up his "useless" hydrogen calculation and do something more practical like designing a next generation computer might fail miserably in his new job. The reason for this is simple: his interest lies with the atomic calculation, not with the computational engineering. Without interest to sustain one's research, it would not be possible to make breakthroughs for the research works are always dry and monotonic. Thus scholars should be allowed to do what they love, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic their interests might seem. They are the experts in their field and they should be granted the full authority when comes to research matter. To sum up, I believe that scholars and researchers must be given the latitude to pursue whatever interest they see fit. The society should hold its tongue on this matter. If the government or any powerful body starts to tell them to produce only works that are beneficial to the world, then we might be missing something really important.

245 International relations can never be completely harmonious because many cultures do not share the same values. It is said that international relations between different countries can not be completely harmonious because many cultures do not share the same values. I agree partially with the above viewpoint. However, I also believe that the root of the conflict doesn't lie at all in the disparaging values subscribed by different countries. I shall show that there are other contributing factors to unstable international relations. Middle East has been the focus of the world for years. The relationship between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries are always tense. The reason for the conflict lies in the cultures of the Jews and the Arabs. Most of the Israel's citizens are Jews, whereas the Arabs are Muslims. The two vying religious cultures share many different values. These differences lead them to denigrate their opponents as "infidels", and both believe that they are the rightful heirs of the Palestinian lands. The disparaging worldview between Judaism and Islam couples with historical onus and deep distrust for each other, help to create the friction in Middle East. By contrast, we seldom heard the news of tense relationship between Iran and Syria. This is due to the fact that both countries are Islamic states and this fact is enough to unite them to fight against a common enemy, the Israel. Similarly, the cold war between U.S and U.S.S.R a few decades ago is also a vie of ideology. The U.S believes in individual power, whereas the Marxism stresses the community as a whole. Both believe that their version of handling nation is more superior to others. U.S and the U.S.S.R took each other as their competitor and their relationship was never smooth because of deep ideological gap. Besides that, one can also attribute the tensing situation between Cuba and U.S to the polarized values between the two countries. A dictator rules Cuba while U.S believes in democracy and freedom. The confrontation between them started as soon as a dictator took charge of Cuba. Having said this, it would be a mistake to believe that a world with unified values is a harmonious society. U.S and France are both democratic countries, and both are deeply influenced by Christianity. These facts don't stop them from having disagreement over how to handle the post war Iraq situation. The bitter U.S-France relation stems from the fact that they have conflicting interest over this matter. Likewise, Malaysia and Singapore share the same culture, but the leaders always exchange words and quarrel with each other whenever their benefits are threatened. The morale of the story is, whenever there's a conflicting of interest between two parties, the relationship between them will begin to smell sour. To conclude, the disparaging worldviews is one of the factors that worsen an international relationship. However, this factor is by no means the only determining factor: whenever two countries' interest over certain issues diverged, it is likely that they would drift further and further away from each other. Knowing these facts will help in soothing a tense international situation.

ruchita: Thanks for your suggestion, ruchita. But I thought that I did address the scond statement of the problem. I did this by enumerating a lists of efforts we have done to educate our children and questioning the contention that "we don't know enough to raise our children for the sake of better tomorrow." That's what I think, you are free to dispute my point.:)

172 Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time. It is often believed that important truths are always deviated from the conventional wisdom. The supporters of this statement believe that important facts begin as vicious attacks upon accepted beliefs. I fully agree with this and I shall provide examples to back up my stand. Humans are dogmatic, our brain is designed in such a way that when it devotes memories to store certain concepts, it will be very difficult to get rid of them later on. Hence whenever a rebellious idea is suggested, we would have a hard time digesting and accepting it. This situation is exacerbated if our tenets are reinforced by traditional teachings or common wisdom. We would try to ignore radical idea at the first time, and if the it is too difficult to set aside, we would find ways to discredit it. we often take new revelations as outrageous assaults because they hurt our ego and disrupt the balance of our belief system. The situation is especially conspicuous in the area of science. Copernicus's theory directly challenged the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The theory proposed that Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa, as the conventional wisdom suggested. This important truth was ferociously resisted by the Clergymen and the public because it was uncomfortable, radical and common sense defying. Similarly, evolution according to Darwin was labelled as "heretical" by church and general public the time it was proposed. Public had a hard time with the austere fact that human evolved from apes because it denigrates human to the level of animal. Until today, even when majority of scientific community accepts evolution as both a fact and a theory, some people still found evolution offensive because it doesn't conform to their dogma. Important social truths share the same plight with scientific truth. Take for example, it was long believed that blacks are second class human compared to the white. This piece of belief went unchallenged for many years. Thus when the blacks gathered to fight for their rights in 1960s, they were scorned, harassed, attacked or even assassinated. The truth that all men are created equal, regardless of race, were met with fierce opposition from the public because they were not ready to accept it. Similarly, public dismissed the truth that women are as capable as men it was first introduced. Women had to fight for the rights of schooling, the rights of equal treatment and the rights of voting before some small achievements are materialised. It's difficult to measure the sacrifice those women had undergo because of their conviction. To sum up, it is true that whenever new truths are proposed, they would suffered heavy scepticism from the majority, just because they are different from conventional beliefs. Thus I have nothing but infinite admiration for iconoclasts because they have the courage to defend the truth even though doing so will set them at odds with the society at large.

130 How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society Children are the apples in the parents’ eyes. All parents hope that their children, when grown up, will prosper and contribute to society. However, opinion differs on how to raise them. Some asserts that children shall be exposed to other people so that they can learn the arts of socializing. They contend that the socialization of children today is pivotal to the destiny of future society. Furthermore, they believe that we have not yet ready to prepare our children to bring a better society. I agree only partially with this point of view. Needless to say, the art of communication is important, and children should learn it as soon as possible. The challenges await them in the future are too difficult to solve by one-man strength. To crack a problem, it requires collective intelligence, information and power from a bunch of cooperative people. The situation is conspicuous in company. It is often that a group of executives meet together to discuss the strategy of the company, for the future of company is too perilous to be put under one-man control. If one wants to push his ideas through, one will have to know how to communicate their ideas with others. This is where the arts of socializing come into play: without it, one will not be able to sell his idea. Similar principle applies in management area; future generation will one day stand up to be the leader of the society. If our children are passive in activities, reticent in conversation, introvert and pessimistic, we have to better start worrying. The reason for this is simple: future leaders are supposed to be active, well-spoken, extrovert and courageous, and if our children lack those qualities, they might not stand up as lustrous stars, at least in the area of management. So socialization is important, but is it the only factor that dictates the evolution of society? The answer is no. In the history we often witness how a genius single handedly change the course of human civilization, and this trend is unlikely to yield, especially in scientific area. Take for example, Einstein, after working in isolation for 10 years, proposed the theory of general relativity. This theory is the fundamental pillar of modern physics. Without it, our society is very different. Likewise, Andrew Wiles, a mathematician, solved Fermat Last Theorem, a conundrum that bamboozled mathematicians for centuries, after 7 years working in secrecy and seclusion. It is fair to say that besides arts of communication, we also need to discover the special talents of children. To say that we have not learn how to raise children is somewhat misleading. This statement might be applicable to the days of industrial revolution, but it might not be true today. Today we send our children to school, so that they can absorb knowledge and at the same time, learn how to socialize with others. We ask our children to participate in charity works, so that they can contribute to the society and know the hardship of life. We encourage our children to be school’s club president, so that they learn the arts of managing people and learn to solve human conflict. We enroll our children in team sports, so that they can test the preciousness of the friendship and sportsmanship. To those who are especially gifted, whether in the area of sports, arts or science, we offer them special programs so that they can graduate early from university and shine in respective area. After all these efforts, is it fair to suggest that we don’t know how to prepare the children for future changes? Yes, we might not perfect, but to say that we don’t know how to raise them for the benefits of society is simply exaggeration. To sum up, it’s important for children to posses the arts of communication and socialization. But it takes more than that to guarantee the advancement of society. And the programs we have for the children are enough to raise them for the future of our world.

Another list. [*]dolorous: sorrowful [*]sycophant: the one who fawn a lot [*]cupidity:greed [*]tumid: said of writing (bombastic) [*]canvas: heavy, closely woven fabric [*]staple:main principle [*]savory:the taste which is not sweet [*]comport: behave [*]dent: doing only minor harm [*]taut: laugh at [*]rein: control [*]gaudy:obstentation [*]sanguine: cheerfully optimistic [*]vainglorious :boastful [*]chatters: do sth rapidly [*]ambit: the range or limit [*]galling:hurt [*]flagellation: self criticism [*]venomous: deadly [*]banter: joke [*]delirium: simply say [*]piddling: squander [*]insidious: doing harm secretly [*]lampoon: attack with satire [*]scour: search thoroughly [*]sumptous: lavish [*]blanch: becoming white [*]eerie: causing a sense of fear or mystery [*]dismal: sad [*]defile: dishonor [*]debilitate: weaken

Yes, sorry for the typo. Berserk means mad with anger

I download the guru software, and I found, to my dismay, some of the function such as bookmarking, authomatically remembering the wrong words etc are not functioning....any idea? Or perhaps I am too dumb to figure out?

I am posting the words from my personal dictionary to help others (and myself) to grasp the meaning of the words better. [*]exercrate: curse [*]wanton: playful [*] slew: large quntity or number [*]intoxicate: make drunk/ excite [*]tart: sharp to the taste [*]ratify: verify [*]comeuppance: deserving punishment [*]yank: to pull sth quickly and forcefully [*]effervescant: forming foam [*]delectable: delightable [*]happenstance: sth good happen by chance [*]tardy: slow, tarry [*]perched: rest [*]moldy: boring [*]beserk: mad with violent anger [*]effigy: a potrait

I agree with your thesis, but I find that your second paragraph is a bit weak, that's it. ANyway, I'm a Malaysian born chinese....I guess you hold the passport of Republic of China?

Yes. But the reason they are convinced didn't have to do with scientific evidence, rather, the church dogma forced them to subsribe to Platomic theory. Newton theory is no longer the foundation of physics. It's just a subset of quantum mechanics ( in microscopic scale), and a subset of General Relativity ( macroscopically speaking). You see, even with the advent of new theory newton theory wan't overthrowned, it was merely refined and expanded. Thanks

Please evaluate this, I afraid my essay is too long and too discursive 49 “Imaginative works such as novels, plays, films, fairy tales, and legends present a more accurate and meaningful picture of human experience than do factual accounts. Because the creators of fiction shape and focus reality rather than report on it literally, their creations have a more lasting significance." The role of imaginative works in the degrees of reflecting human experience is a contentious issue. Some believe that fictions present the veracity of life more than factual accounts do. They argue that the reasons fictional literature has a lasting significance is because it vividly captures the condition of society. I agree partly with the statements above. Most of the enduring classics reflect the experience of the author. The reason why the fictions are so well received is because the reader mind resonates with the adventure of protagonist. The success of the author actually depends in how good can he depict the real situation. If the settings of the book and the theme of the book has little connection with reader's life, then it's unlikely that readers will have little interest in reading it through. Take for example, the book vividly delineated the condition of black slaves in Southern America during 19th century. The author did her job so well that the book brought sympathy tears to the reader eyes. Those who have read will be touched by the hapless fate endured by protagonist. Although the author tells her story through fiction, it doesn't mean that the book is a mere fantasy. Beneath the veil of imaginative element, there lies the description of facts. What about science fiction? Science fiction usually takes a setting that is unfamiliar to most of us. Some immediately dismiss science fiction as bearing no connection with human life because it talks about uncertain things in the future. Take for example, British author G. Wells wrote a famous book regarding time travel. Today we know that time travel is unrealizable, at least in Wells sense. These critics completely miss the point of science fiction. Science fiction is created either to reflect the social problems we face (Wells ), or to predict the future world (Clark's ), or to alert us on the downside of technologies (). In this sense, science fiction does paint a faithful picture of human's hopes, fears and experience. For instance, George o Wells, the famous satirist wrote . The protagonist lives under the surveillance of "Big Brother", the ubiquitous government. The big brother monitors everything, from public affairs to private thought. The author is projecting his fears of Communism and tyranny. Although the story takes place in a hypothetical world, the moral of the story has great relevance with the reality. The detail or the story plot in science fiction may not correspond to fact, but nevertheless we can still draw inspiration from the morale of the book. Can we say that imaginative works are presenting a more accurate picture of human experience than factual accounts, as the topics suggest? No. Imaginative work is invented to convey a certain point; it doesn't mean to be read literally. Thus it is possible for fiction to exaggerate. Take for example, the Robin Hood myth in England. The story is invented to express the desire to be free from tyranny and the landlord. It doesn't have educational value in history because Robin Hood is just a literary invention. Factual accounts such as newspapers or official documents are more truthful than myths or novels or plays, for they are meant to serve as a literary check against false hoods and anecdotes. Factual accounts are striving for absolute veracity, while imaginative works are less concern about that. To sum up, I agree that imaginative works may have a more lasting endurance than factual accounts. However I don't believe that imaginative accounts are more truthful than factual stories. Yes, imaginative works do reflects the reality, but their level of truthfulness cannot be compared to factual documents.

I guess here lies my weakness. You see, I get so excited about the topic that I wrote everything in one go without proper planning. I should have explain that some "facts" we know yesterday are plain wrong, due to misjudgment etc. One example is the so-called Pitfall Man stigma in Palentology. The reason for the fraud is because there wasn't much examiniation done on it. But for the case of well tested scientific theory which had been literally verified N times, it can never be proven false by the future theories. Future theories can only define the proper limits of the current theories. For example we know that Kepler's law is always true under normal condition, Newton's theory modifies the law so that it is applicable in the when two stars are equally heavy. A better way of writing the essay will be: 1 para: intro, defines different level of facts 2 para: 1st level of facts, the kind of facts we see in newspaper. This kind of facts are of greatest uncertainty and it's alright to hold reservation. 3 para: 2nd level of facts. The facts that we deduced from theory. For example the deduction of earth occupies the center position from copernicus theory. Most of the time these facts are right. 4 para: the kind of facts that is directly observed in lab, for example micro evolution, and the fact that newton theory is true. These kind of facts can over be overthrowned. Actually the accuracies of copernicus theory is even worse than plotemic, no one call it facts since the observational evidence doesn't match with theoretical calculations, copernicus just put forward a much more conceptually clear hypothesis to supplant plotemic's. It's up to Newton and his gang to really develop the theory to the point where we can determine planetary motion accurately.

HI flycai, overrall I have no problem with your essay, but I will like to dispute the second paragraph: Hmm....the religion itself has evolve with respect to time and in response to the advancement of science. In some cases the technology directly challenges the ethics of the church, and we don't really know wether church will yield to the challenge of technology. One example is abortion. Abortion was considered evil. However the advancement of the pill triggered the sexual revolution, and as a result today liberal Protestant church no longer consider abortion as a sin. One can argue that tech in this case actually determines the code of ethics. Besides that, you point on most westerners are still Nazarene (I guess you mean christian), and so techs can't determine the social ethics...to be frank I found this argument very weak. No, in fact most westerners are not church going christians (with the notable exception of US), and even church goers show little fidelity towards traditional doctrine. It is hard to imagine that tech is not a factor in their backslidding, since the general opinion among socialogist is that the advancement of civilization will make ppl less religious. Just my point of view...feel free to critize

75. "The people who make important contributions to society are generally not those who develop their own new ideas, but those who are most gifted at perceiving and coordinating the talents and skills of others." The world we live in is shaped by a handful of geniuses. The creative geniuses contribute their spark of new ideas, and those management geniuses are gifted at perceiving and coordinating talents. In business and technological world, both kinds of geniuses are needed in order to ensure the success of an enterprise. The field of humanities and science, meanwhile, belongs to creative guys. In a competitive environment, any enterprise needs to revitalize itself constantly to cope with challenge. Companies must be creative and innovative so that they can satisfy the demands of flirtatious customers. This is why companies are hunger for creative talents, for without these brains they can't come up with new things and thus earning a share in the market. On the other hand company also needs a leader, a man who set the targets and the road map of the company. The role of a leader is to coordinate talents so that they can perform. A company with only smarties but no commander is likely to plummet into crisis because, you know, smart people have the propensity to generate friction with each other. Likewise, a company which has only good leader but no wizards cannot advance far. Without any one of the two geniuses, there would be no hope for an enterprise to be successful. It's difficult, if not impossible to make comparison between the two kinds of geniuses. Things are drastically different in humanities and philosophy. These fields belong to creative intellectuals alone. The diplomatic skill, which is essential in management, will not enable one to come up with the inspiration of Beethoven, and the gift of perceiving and coordinating people will not enhance one's chance to write a wonderful play such as Shakespeare's. From the history we see that these fields are actually advance by a handful of insightful individuals. Karl Marx wrote "Les Capitalist" in 19 century, and this book inspired the Russian Revolution in 20th century and set the foundation of Communism. Emmanuel Kant, the father of modern philosophy developed his thesis in [the critique of pure reason] and today we still owed much insight to him. The management type geniuses simply couldn't make great impact in the field of academics. The same can be said for the case of natural science. Unlike technological development which requires cooperative works from many branches of specialists, the study of natural science is often advanced by a few talents who know their subject well. Since the numbers of people involving in a science project are not too great, there is no need for management genius. Management genius has no role to play in discovering new underlying natural principles. This is the job for exceptionally creative genius who can come up with new ideas. One just has to recall the example of Newton, Einstein and Maxwell to understand the point. Without the contribution of these scientists, it's unlikely for our society to advance. To sum up, the topic statement is not well defined. Instead of saying "the people who make important contribution...” the topic statement should explicitly specifying the kinds of contribution. If the topic asks me to compare the importance of creative and management genius in the area of business or technology, then I will say that both are equally important. If topic wants the comparison in the field of humanities or science, then my answer is creative wizard is more important than management guy.

I am not very satisfied with what I wrote, please give some comments 239. Much of the information that people assume is '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. Living in a computer age, our lives are flooded with all kinds of information. However, it is often that the information we receive turn out to be wrong or inaccurate. Seeing this, some suggest that any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may be proven false in the future. I can't agree with this. I shall show that, once a 'fact' is established to be true, there is no ground to suppose that it may turn false in the future. Supporters of the topic statement believe that nothing is absolute in life. They charge that there is no way for us to get the 100% of the truth. When investigator investigates an event, most of the time one can only rely on second hand account to make sensible deduction. It is possible that the lead the investigator has does not convey the whole pictures. Even if one does have all the relevant evidence, the interpretation of this evidence is still open to debate. It's too often that one's prejudice distorts of truth. Take for example, before Einstein most Europeans simply assumed the validity of Newton's model. This model, which asserts the existence of gravitational force between two bodies, was well received among intellectuals. As more astronomical data emerged, scientists discovered that Newton model didn't describe new data well. To remedy the situation, ad hoc hypothesis was introduced to save the theory. Today we may laugh at those efforts, but at that time the fact that the space is curved (Einstein's theory) was not obvious. This Newton example was often cited by topic statement's supporter as an example today's fact may become antediluvian tomorrow, and thus, we should mistrust all facts. We might be wrong in our models; the reason for this might be simply that we make erroneous extrapolation. Take for the above Newton model for example, contrary to popular misconception, Newton theory is never overthrown by Einstein's. Newton's model is still used today in engineering application. Newton's theory is applicable in low mass condition like solar system. Scientists use Einstein theory when they are studying highly exotic objects. In other words, Newton's theory is always correct in everyday life condition; it is invalid when it is arbitrarily extrapolate to extreme condition. The fact that there exists a force inversely proportional to the distance is always true; provide that the conditions are satisfied. It will not and cannot be proven false in the future. The lesson to be learned from the above example is, we must be careful in classifying our data. We must be vigilant to separate what the data actually says from what it doesn't. The reason that we are wrong in our facts is because we failed to distinguish the proper limits of extrapolation. Some don't understand this point, and they make sweeping claim that all the 'facts' are not reliable. This is unfortunate, because we are indeed possible to trust established facts wholeheartedly. To sum up, some 'factual' information may turn up to be a hoax, but we can't infer that ‘any’ fact will be overthrown in the future. We must exercise care and skepticism over everything we read, for doing so will enable us to see the picture clearer and hence reduce the probability of being misled.

Halo, I felt that you don't really address the question. The question is about should we mistrust all purported 'facts', since it may be proven false in the future..i think one should directly support or disagree the last sentence, since it's the meat of the whole question... Please do reply as I will like to hear from you further. P/s: Hawking didn't demonstrate the falsities of general relativity. His work led him to realise the limits of general relativity under extreme condition where quantum effects is important. He still develops his theory under the frame work of general relavity...and quantum mechanics. Also, there's no way contribution of Hawking can be paraded in juxdaposed with Einstein's.:)

HI, I'd like give some my opnions. Your language is fluent and claer, better than me, hehe :) But I think you analysis is somewhat superficial, you could develop it further thoroughly. for example, as to youe second viewpoint: you could at first admit that before human being exist, too many species do extinct; then you could emphasize that it is human being who accelerate this extincting process. Just my points. Hope you can view mine and give me some advices. thanks for your opinion....Yes, I realised that my analysis is bit tooo glib...the problem is that I am running out of good examples and ideas...ecological stuff is not something I read extensively, so my source of information is limited to general knowledge... Thank you for your comment...I will try to review your essays...if time permits

121 At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species. It is known that most species become extinct as a result of natural processes. Change of climate or the challenges of predators are the two main factors causing the disappearances of species from the face of the earth. Human processes before 20th century actually contributed very little to the extinction of species. This lead some to infer that there is no justification to make efforts to save those endangered species. I disagree with this. I shall argue that the money and efforts dedicate to saving endangered species is a worthwhile one. Humans are a part of the Mother Earth and so we have the duty to take a good care of it. All the living beings on earth form equilibrium with each other. Our world is evolved in such as way that one species depend on another for food. If any particular species is wiped out, other species would be closely affected as well. Take for example; pesticide is used on farm to control the damages done by pests. However, this pesticide’s effect also influences the pests' predators. Farmers found that at the beginning of the use of pesticides, the pest numbers were declining. However a few years later, the pest develops immunity towards the pesticides. Even worse, the predators of the pests were dying. As a result, the pests infested the farm because its predators not longer haunt them. If we let any endangered species to go extinct, then there is a danger that the food balance will be perturbed, and the consequence might be devastating. Our survival here on earth may also be affected, because we are also a part of the ecological system and any changes in the system will influence us as well. The topic says that "many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes". This is true before 20th century. However it is alarming to see that in last century human activity on earth is posting great threat to the survival of wide species. The process of industrialization turned verdant forests into factories; the building of factories changed the composition of gas in the atmosphere and invited the green house effect. As a result, wild species were deprived of their homeland. Many species became extinct alongside with their forests. The uncontrolled fishing activities decimated the number of fish, this again disturb the balance of Nature and reduce the diversity of sea. Besides that, the toxic exhaled from the factories into the rivers greatly pollutes the water, contaminates the rivers, and makes the place inhabitable for fish. We can't console ourselves to say that our activities have little effect on the species, for human process are now actually the main causes of the mass species extinction. To sum up, money and energy put into saving the endangered species is never wasted. Human depends on other species to survive on earth and to maintain the earth's equilibrium. According to Bible, one of the human missions is to be the gardener of the Eden. We mustn't defy this holy call.

156 Choice is an illusion. In reality, our lives are controlled by the society in which we live. For centuries, philosophers have been arguing about the free will problems. Those who believe in free will hold that humans are free to choose under every circumstances, while those who believe that choice is just an illusion asserts that our lives are controlled by the society in which we live in and hence, there is no real free will at all. I hold a moderate view points between two extremes; I believe that we are always presented with choices, but these choices are limited. Those who assert that choice is just an illusion believe that humans are just programmed robots which works according to algorithm presrcibed in the chip.They believe that we are controlled by the society. Society determines how we think and what we should do. If society says X is bad, we would avoid it. Likewise, if society endorses Y act, then we must embrace it. Take for example, in Muslim country, wearing bikinis is considered as a sin because it instigates men's lustful desire. Women are forced to wear tudung because their religious teachers teach them that it is inappropriate to expose their body to strangers. Thus Muslims women have no option to comply with the society's demand. They can't defy those teaching (no matter how unreasonable it sounds), because going against religious teachers is tantamount to betraying religion. In Muslim countries, religion is everything and those who deny its authority would face society pressure, if not legal action. This is an example some will cited to support the idea that our lives are indeed controlled by society. However, are we really deprive of choices? No. The fact is, we are still presented with options in which we can choose from. Within the tolerance limits of society, there are still plenty of options available whether we realized it or not. Take the above Muslim women as example, if a Muslim woman do not wish to wear tudung, she can choose to stay in house instead of going out. For those who are wealthy, they can choose to migrate to other secularized countries in which religion is not a big issue. The point here to learn is that, we have choices, even though these choices are limited. People who believe that choice is just an illusion would not do anything to challenge conventional society. Since choice isn't a real thing, why should we fight for it? This sort of attitude would impede society's advancement. In the past history, there are a lot people who were dissatisfied with their lives. Some took a nihilism attitude and complied submissively with the society; others who were more courage challenged the conventional wisdoms. Those valiant fighters stubbornly believed that we are not controlled by society. Instead, they believed that we can shape the society, enlarged the choice set we have by reforming the society values. Martin Luther King stands out as a quintessence example. Before 1960's blacks in America are not treated equally. They didn't have the right to vote, they couldn't attend the same school alongside with their compatriot whites and they were discriminated in every aspect. Blacks who believed that their lives are controlled by the society would not stand up to speak against the unjust. King was different, with a great vision in mind; he believed that we can make a change to the world. Had King constrained himself with the contemporary standard, the blacks would not be liberated and US society today would be very different. To sum up, humans are not presented with infinite choices; we are not free to do anything. Rather, our options are limited by society's standard. History is replete with examples of society reformation. Each time a reform is made, society standard became more lenient and people were presented with more freedom. Thus if one believe that the society standards are too rigid, then social reformation is the way.

Please evaluate my essay...I afraid that I didn't do well...it is too long

110 When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers. The study of history is an interesting. Some hold that there is no such thing as objective truth in history. They believe that interpretation of events is inevitably tainted by our prejudice and thus all historians are just storytellers. While I agree that interpretation of history involves certain degree of arbitrariness, I dispute the statement "history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit". I shall argue that historians can bring us closer to the truth by reconstructing events based on available evidence. No doubt historical studies are often colored by one's bias and motives. Different people will have different view on the same historical events. This is because we can never know the past directly and hence we have to rely on indirect interpretation of certain evidence. Out of national pride or biases, we might downplay evidence that contradict our view and overemphasize the evidence that favor ours. It's impossible to get a fully fair picture from historians because their prejudice will indubitably slips into their judgment. Take for example, Newton's heat dispute with Leibniz. Newton was a Briton and Leibniz was a German. They fought for the priority of inventing calculus in 17th century. For a century the British scholars featured Newton as the calculus inventor, while German scholars believed that Leibniz was justified to be called as the "father of calculus". No conclusion was made on this issue until a century later. The light came when historians discovered that Newton conceived the idea first before Leibniz, but it was Leibniz who first published his findings. Today Textbooks featured both men as the inventor of Calculus. Another example is holocaust. The number of Jews died in the Hitler’s hands is very hard to estimate. The reason is because we have only indirect evidence and these evidence are incomplete and sometimes, controversial. Jewish scholars will estimate the death tolls higher than some extreme left and right groups. The discrepancy in numbers led some to doubt the veracity of holocaust. They charge that biased historians are misrepresenting available evidence and hyperbole the real situation. Even though historical interpretation is often colored by human's bias, but this doesn't mean that we can't recovered historical truth. It's certainly untrue to believe that historical accounts are merely story telling and dismiss its veracity. We can at least get the general idea of certain events even though some minor details are controversial. Take the above Newton's case for example, though we might not know who invented calculus first, but at least we know that Newton and Leibniz were the first few who had the idea. Similarly, we might never know exactly how many Jews perished in concentration camp, but we knew that Holocaust did happen. We don't have to know all the details in order to establish a case. History is an objective enterprise and it is possible to understand the past even though unimportant details are sketchy. Some may believe that since we don't have "direct" evidence, thus the reconstruction of historical events is meaningless. This belief is unjustified. Science also relies on indirect evidence and there is no reason why history shouldn't. No one ever witness how dinosaurs went extinct. But nevertheless scientists believe that dinosaurs perished 65 millions years ago. To have a historical theory accepted, the theory must be able to explain all the data available. If new data doesn't agree well with old theory, then the theory must be revised or discarded. This auto-correcting process ensures that the historical theories we have are open to change .Every time a revision is made; we are brought a step closer to truth. Sometimes direct evidence is not available, so we have to rely on indirect evidence and do some interpolation. In this way we can still find the best approximation to the truth. Conclusion: it is false to say that history is merely story. Historical account is the closest approximation to the historical truth. Historians are not storytellers; rather they are August men and women who have a passion to understand the past.

159 The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds. For past 50 years, we witness a rapid development in the field of computer and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The chips are getting smaller and the processors are getting more powerful. The exponential increase of computer power in a relatively short time leads some to believe that one day human might be replaced by computer. However I strongly disagree with this view, I believe that human mind will always be much more superior compare to machines. Those who are optimistic about the prospect that one day machines can surpass human ability points to Moore's Law as their supporting proof. As it was stated, Moore's Law asserts that the computer processors speed will double for every 18 months. They contend that the speedy advancement in hardware will eventually enable computer to do any sort of computation. In 1950s, no one would have thought of applying computer to do aircraft design because at that time the computer wasn't powerful enough. However, today all aircraft companies use Computer Aid Design (CAD) extensively. Given the fact that computing power doubles itself for 18 months, strong AI supporters assert that ultimately machines will defeat human's mind, because the machines can calculate faster then us. Strong AI supporters are right to point out that our mind can't compete with computer's speed. They are right to say that computer will outperform human in problems that can be solved by brute algorithms. However this doesn't mean that machine ability will some day surpass human minds’. The reason is computer lacks creativity. It can only do what human wants. Take the above CAD for example. Human write the algorithm and computer merely follow the algorithm step by step. Computer doesn't know how to solve a problem at hand unless human explicitly specify the instruction. The advancement of computing speed merely enables computer to execute the instruction faster. In this sense machines are just the tools of human minds. We rely on computer to perform simple but tedious calculations, and we rely on our brain to devise proper algorithm for computer to execute. Human minds are superior compare to computer because we can learn from past experience and thus modifying our strategies to meet present challenge. Computer on other hand cannot learn from past experience. Our minds evolve in such a way that we can propose new solution whenever a new problem arises. Computer can't do that. This means that computer can never acquire a thinking of its own. Our brain ability can be enhanced by learning; computer can't learn. The ability of computer is sealed the day it is manufactured. The ability to cope with realistic world situation largely depends on creativity and experience but not on computing speed. That's why computer can't be used to handle solve Middle East conflict. International relationship is a pure human's game. Conclusion: our minds beat computer when come to facing day-to-day situations. To sum up, while it is possible for computer to beat us in the area of calculation, but it is impossible for computer to surpass human minds in general. There are a lot of things in which computer cannot do, such as learning. Computer is just a tool in our hands; it can never become master of its own.

089 Leaders are created primarily by the demands that are placed upon them. What are the roles of leaders? Leaders are supposed to lead people who have common interests. The job of a leader is to represent the people's concerns and try to meet their needs as closely as he can. Thus it is fair to say that leaders are created primarily by the demands that are placed upon them. In democratic country, voters get chances to choose their leaders. Naturally, they would prefer a leader whose ideology similar to them. They would select the representative who can best fight for their interest. This ensures that the elected ones must always meet the demands placed by voters so that they can get elected in the future. Two parties dominate US’s politics, one is Democratic Party, and another is Republic party. Democrats are traditionally identified as the friends of the minorities and the liberal; while Republicans represents the interest of white burgeon and the religious conservatives. To win white house, the two parties must try their best to secure their traditionally votes and draw as much votes as they can from other parties. How can they do it? The only way is to meet the demand of the voters. Take Lewinsky's scandal for example. After the incident, Americans longed to restore their broken family value. They want a leader who is credible and loyal to their partners. That's why two president candidates at that time placed so much emphasize on religion and family during the campaign, and that's why Bill Clinton had to stay away from Al Gore. Politicians can't afford to go against the needs of the voters because their mandates come from them. The topic statement is especially true during trying times. Winston Churchill was elected at time when Britain faced external threat from Germany during World War 2. British voted Churchill as the Prime Minister because they need the service of Churchill. They believed that the charm and the magic stick of Churchill was the formula to the problem. Churchill didn't disappoint his compatriots by leading allied to victory. However after the war Britons decided that they should make a change, and they simply voted Churchill out of office. This is the best proof that leaders are created by the demands of the people. After the war ended the Britons didn't need a Prime Minister who could win war, instead they need a leader who could handle post war scenario. And so Churchill didn't get selected. Similar things happened in religion. At 15th and 16th century, the seeds renaissance was blossoming despite the fact that Europe was still clouted by Dark Age. The consequence of this awakening was that Europeans began to doubt the power of Roman Catholics Church. Martin Luther was one of the heroes of Reformation and today we would remember Luther as the valiant fighter who fearlessly defied the authority of Rome. In actual fact, Luther had no desire to lead the Reformation movement. He had no intention to break away from Rome and formed his own dominations. The people who were very unsatisfied with Rome pushed Luther to the arena of history. Europeans wished to see alternative religious teachings other than conventional dogma found Luther's teaching attractive. The dissatisfaction about Roman Catholics was growing and many were unwilling to remain in Catholics tenet. It was under these pressures that Luther became the Reformation Leader. To sum up, there are ample of historical evidences proving leaders are created by the demands of the people. Thus politicians who wished to succeed must learn the lessons by fulfilling the demands of the people.