In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.
The statement links the significant achievements with experiences. As the great scientist, Isaac Newton, once put: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulder of the giant.” The metaphor means that it is easier to discover base on the previous discoveries. But it seems that this concept can not be applied universally on different fields such as art field.
In the scientific field, most of the innovation come from the experiences. Base on the established theory, scientists are able to pose new hypothesis from the existing knowledge and, by conducting the experiment, we can either prove the hypothesis or reject it and ultimately increase our bank of experience. The process is slow but firm. Over time, by accumulating the experiences little by little, surely some important breakthroughs will happen. All of the scientists are following this path.
Some people may argue that the path of the science making innovation is changing because we are heralded into a new era of inter-discipline science. Inter-discipline science no longer addresses the development of the conventional field, but the combination of wide varieties of fields, such as Artificial intelligent, Robotic, Fin-tech, and so on. Take Fin-tech for example, it requires a scientist with knowledge of not only computer science and statistics but also finance and economy. By this cross-linking in different technology, we are able to make a breakthrough without past achievements. Nevertheless, this concept is arbitrary because it is still using the foundations of previous scientific achievements. Thus, the innovative process of inter-discipline science is still following the same way.
However, the procedure seems different in the fields other than science. Fields such as arts, there are myriad examples show that unprecedented achievements can be realized without experience basement. The evaluation of the art field may not be the same as in the science, it is decided by its audiences. For example, in 18 centuries, lots of musicians implemented new techniques, used various kinds of instruments or based on innovative tempo theory in order to create brand new music atmosphere for the audience. However, only a few of them succeed. On the other hand, one of the greatest musician, Beethoven, actually didn’t make any innovative approach, but exploited the existent techniques and pushed it to the limit. In the arts field, as a kind of entertainment, the primary issue is to entertain the audiences.
To sum up, it is important for science field to make a significant contribution on the basis of previous achievement, while for art field it is not. Because the evaluations for each of them are on different standards. For the science that is decided by how much innovative it is, but for the arts that are depended on the audiences. Thus, there are more chances for scientists to make contributions by following their predecessor, but that is generally not the case in terms of the arts.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-16 | HAN YEBIN | 50 | view |
| 2024-04-02 | guozhishan | 50 | view |
| 2023-09-01 | Sovendo Talapatra | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | Jonginn | 83 | view |
| 2022-11-04 | raghavchauhan619 | 83 | view |
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. 90
- Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders mush yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently 50
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study prepare them for lucrative careers. 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 450, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
...me important breakthroughs will happen. All of the scientists are following this path. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, thus, while, for example, kind of, such as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2533.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 481.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26611226611 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24467290841 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49896049896 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8940215324 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.32 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.24 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44 5.21951772744 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206899824727 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0580699295106 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0687327371609 0.0758088955206 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11299436987 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0538662049523 0.0667264976115 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.