|
culture smart -------社会科学 角度 社会性 文化底蕴，在于积累，很厚重 science intelligent- 自然科学 角度 科技性 ，在于探索，挑战性 How often have we not been told that the study of physical science is incompetent to confer culture; that it touches none of the higher problems of life; and, what is worse, that the continual devotion to scientific studies tends to generate a narrow and bigoted belief in the applicability of scientific methods to the search after truth of all kinds ? How frequently one has reason to observe that no reply to a troublesome argument tells so well as calling its author a "mere scientific specialist." And, as I am afraid it is not permissible to speak of this form of opposition to scientific education in the past tense; may we not expect to be told that this, not only omission, but prohibition, of "mere literary instruction and education" is a patent example of scientific narrow-mindedness? I think that we must all assent to the first proposition. For culture certainly means something quite different from learning or technical skill. It implies the possession of an ideal, and the habit of critically estimating the value of things by comparison with a theoretic standard. Perfect culture should supply a complete theory of life, based upon a clear knowledge alike of its possibilities and of its limitations. What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture What Science Offers the Humanities examines some of the deep problems facing current approaches to the study of culture. It focuses especially on the excesses of postmodernism, but also acknowledges serious problems with postmodernism's harshest critics. In short, in order for the humanities to progress, its scholars need to take seriously contributions from the natural sciences-and particular research on human cognition-which demonstrate that any separation of the mind and the body is entirely untenable. The author provides suggestions for how humanists might begin to utilize these scientific discoveries without conceding that science has the last word on morality, religion, art, and literature. Calling into question such deeply entrenched dogmas as the "blank slate" theory of nature, strong social constructivism, and the ideal of disembodied reason, What Science Offers the Humanities replaces the human-sciences divide with a more integrated approach to the study of culture. Technology and Culture have both influenced each other equally. Technology has been directed as an improvement in our lives, but on the other hand, Culture has been present in every invention, noticeable or not, and advancement in our evolving society. Technology is becoming focused upon more and more everyday, but culture is the determining factor that decides if there is a necessity for an improvement. There are endless views and perspectives that this situation can be viewed from, but without a doubt, Technology and Culture shape one another. Culture has been a part of our society, and way of life, forever. It is almost impossible to come up with an idea that isnt influenced by culture. Picture our lives without cars, television, and computers. This would be an example of everyday life without technology. People could function happily in that type of atmosphere, but technology has changed our lives forever. Technology has changed our pace and perspective on education. Students would have to go to libraries and spend a lot of time researching to find out information for class assignments, but with technology students can find almost anything on there home computers and by accessing the internet. Technology has definitely become the authoritative factor in our lives, but culture has shaped technology. Technology is made and used in such a variety of ways because many people who use the technology of today come from all walks of life and have different necessities, so to compensate for that technology must adapt to all different cultures. Culture Smart or Science Intelligent(网友推荐，仅供参考) Good evening，ladies and gentlemen，distinguished guests and honorable judges: It is my great honour to share my viewpoints on Culture Smart and Science Intelligence with all of dear audience present. As is known to us all that our contemporary lives and the society in current are undergoing profound changes with the promoting development of science and technology. However, have we realized the estrange and departure of our culture against the background on which the positive achievements have been brought by science and technology. Which course should we take in culture smart and science intelligence as the issue on social development is concerned in the process of ultrahigh-speeded urbanization? My viewpoint is clear an firm, that is the cultue smart. It is generally accepted by the broad mass that science and technology take the supreme lead of the productivity. No achievements nurtured by civilization in our contemporary society can be created without the development of science and technology and the society will fall to its stagnant pace. Thanks to the progress made by the advancing science and technology, especially the development of intelligentization, schemed out by robots, unmanned driving and digital platform, offers great convienience to both the production and daily lives of human beings and promotes the social progress. But under no circumstances should we admit that a series of problems on environment and social ethics concerning environment pollution, ozonocavity, greenhouse effect, colon human and nuclear deterrent occurred against the prosperity carried out by science and technology. So how can we spare no effort on keeping such problems from deterioration in all possibilities? What development pattern will be on science and technology in future? The answer is that we need the guidance of culture smart. When we talk about culture, we may regard it as the tradition and history, but how can the intelligentization of science and technology be guided by the culture smart? Here I want to put it that culture is not like a pond filled with stagnant water, but a dynamic system. We can never draw a conclusion of culture as “the deposit of history”, what’s more, we should make it clear that the culture defines our present and future. Modernization, of any kind or shape, shares no alteration on its starting point but the commencement of culture. If not the modernization will inevitably fall to the situation where the water has no source and the tree has no root. The development of science and technology takes no exception on this. The ultrahigh speed of the development of contemporary science and technology contributes no efforts on science and technology itself, but the ideological motivation and the promotion spurred by the ideological power offerd by culture smart. Karl Poopper once said, the elimination of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization. It is obviously that if the promotion effect had been omitted, the science and technology could have been far-reached. The culture smart guides our society into stability and prosperity. We need culture smart because on the one hand, culture provides ideological power to science and technology, on the other hand, culture prevents the tendency of extremity of science and technology. The current problem concerning colon human, outerspace utilitization and nuclear weapon byproducted by contemporary science and technology call for the development in a just course on the sphere of culture. The wisdom-vacanted culture and the extremized science and technology will throw a great threat to the survival of us human beings and the world peace. So, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the culture wisdom is our “root” and we need the root that supports our belief, the negation of the root casts its reflections on history and the existence of us human beings. So only in the manner of settling on the basis of culture smart can we make it helpful to the development of science and technology in a just course, the continual progress of human society, the prosperity and peace. Thank you! Both science itself, and the human culture of which it is a part, would benefit from a story of science that encourages wider engagement with and participation in the processes of scientific exploration. Such a story, based on a close analysis of scientific method, is presented here. It is the story of science as story telling and story revising. The story of science as story suggests that science can and should serve three distinctive functions for humanity: providing stories that may increase (but never guarantee) human well-being, serving as a supportive nexus for human exploration and story telling in general, and exemplifying a commitment to skepticism and a resulting open-ended and continuing exploration of what might yet be. Some practical considerations that would further the development and acceptance of such a story of science as a widely shared nexus of human activity are described. Culture Smart or Science Intelligent? Science and Culture What is science? How does it relate to our lives as individual human beings? to other aspects of our social and cultural communities? What is our future? ...our own role in and responsibility for the future? Can empirical inquiry help with such questions? How does empirical understanding relate to other kinds of understanding? Are they necessarily antagonistic or can they usefully complement one another? Division and specialization of function – science school and culture school The intention is to retain traditional methods of teaching science, but to adjust the quantity of this kind of rigorous education to the abilities and attitudes of the student. This implies that it would be more educationally efficient for weaker students to spend just one or two hours per day learning science in a rigorous and ‘didactic’ classroom situation than to spend much longer in less-structured forms of classroom experience. At least, it is known from extensive experience (with elite students) that traditional methods are an effective and efficient way of teaching science. A general understanding of efficiency in systems suggests some principles which would be likely to lead to greater science education efficiency. Perhaps the most frequent way in which human (and biological) systems are able to increase their efficiency is the principle of ‘division of labour’ which was first articulated by the economist Adam Smith. Division of labour increases the complexity of organization by specialization of function, and coordination of these specialized functions. Smith’s famous example involved a pin factory, in which the procedure for making a pin was broken down into numerous simpler, more-specialized sequential steps; and these steps were coordinated by managers leading to vastly increased efficiency (as measured by the numbers of pins produced per person per day) [8]. When the modern school is examined in this light, it can be seen that there is already considerable specialization. For example teachers are specialized according to age of children taught, subject matter expertise, and administrative responsibilities. Schools are also internally specialized by age stratification and academic aptitude of students (also, sometimes, by the sex or socio-economic class of students). However, logically there is a further possible division of function. My proposal is that the efficiency of science teaching might be increased by introducing a functional division between science education, and what might be termed cultural education - which would include arts, sports, ethics, social aspects of schooling and any other educational objectives such as good citizenship. Schools might have an internal functional division into ‘science school’ and ‘culture school’. This functional division should be reflected in terms of physical plant, separate administrative structures, and the recruitment of differently-specialized teaching personnel. These divisions would be characterized by the nature of their system-characteristic internal evaluations. For instance, the evaluations within science school would be relatively narrow and more examination-focused than in the culture school. In science school the performance of both teaching staff and students would be judged mainly (although not exclusively) by scientific criteria, including formal examination results. Science school would be distinguished by its academic ethos and scholarly expectations. The focus of science school would be to inculcate the aptitude for abstract systematic cognition. For example, an existing school might become physically divided between science and cultural parts, each on distinct parts of the campus. Each student would spend some significant part of each day (depending on their aptitude and motivation) in the ‘science school’, experiencing a traditional-style, didactic, disciplined and rigorous academic education which is (so far as we can tell) the best way to teach real science at the basic level. Science school teaching would need to be stratified according to ability and aptitude, since this is more efficient than teaching widely-mixed classes. Different strata of students could be taught from a broadly common curriculum (enabling educational credit accumulation and transfer); but different abilities of student would cover different amounts of subject matter, different specific subjects, and progress at different speeds. The remainder of the students’ time at school would be spent in the cultural division, which would focus on broader aspects, and aiming to generate a more rounded and social individual. Examinations in culture school would be much more based on participation, sustained effort, attitudes, attendance etc. Inevitably, since it has many aims and a wider focus, culture school would apply many evaluations to its teachers and students. Inevitably, too, these evaluations would be less clear-cut and more contested. 从2009年21世纪联想杯冠军的演讲稿中看CCTV杯Culture Smart or Science Intelligent?写作思路 金璐 清华大学 冠军 题目：What would you do if you had only one day left to live? Don’t people just love the word t-e-l-e “tele”, which means far away.（任何时候提出一个新名词，必须对它解释） Indeed this is how modern technology has changed our world. But please don’t forget this other word with “tele”: telepathy which means human beings’ inborn ability to connect to our loved ones. Our minds are supposed to read each other’s minds; our hearts are supposed to feel each other’s hearts — and fulfill these without any forms of tool! （这段里面用了第一人称复数，our/ours, 避免使用任何不定代词，如：someone, anyone, 因为不定代词可以指代任何人，或者是不指代任何人） But the moment I desperately struggled to remember grandmother’s face, the telepathy between her and me had shut down forever. With the help of modern technology, I killed our telepathy.（第一人称的使用最有说服力，感染力，而且她在第二段中就开始对比，一个好的演讲稿件就是在对比中说服，演绎） This shall never happen again! The “tele”s are great inventions. But “telepathy” gives them the warmth of a human face. Let’s harness the power of television to develop our kid’s telepathy with nature… so they can read the secret language of flowers. Let’s make the telephone lines preserve our telepathy with each other, so we can connect in a warm and feeling way. Let technology keep our “telepathy” ALIVE! （let's 引导的排比句能够在结束时候起到轰然的效果，排比也是一个稿件当众的首要条件，但是具体位置要依据你的内容而定；依据你的性格和场上表现力而定） 金璐同学的演讲稿最大的亮点是巧妙地找到了“telecommunications”和“telepathy”这一对同以“tele”为前缀，但却表达了两个截然相反的人与人之间的相处模式：far away和close touch by heart。 Telepathy，意指“人与人之间无需外力帮助的心灵感应”。作者指出，在现代社会里，人们越来越依赖现代科技，渐渐失去了和亲人朋友之间心灵感应的能力：“With the help of modern technology, I killed our telepathy。”作者讲述了和所教的小孩子以及和去世的奶奶之间的小故事，浅显易懂地阐述了这个现象。讲故事是最能拉近和观众距离，最易打动人心的一个演讲技巧。 但是，作者也并没有完全否定telecommunications的积极作用：“Let technology keep our ‘telepathy’ alive”。太过依赖电视、电话，会拉开人与人之间的距离；但同时这些现代通讯设备的确为面对面交流不方便的人们提供了交流的渠道，我们可以利用这些通讯设备多和亲人朋友聊天，增进了解，保持心灵上的交流。一正一反，但又有所侧重，使得这篇演讲稿重点突出，但又不至于过于偏激。 |
|
|
