Issue-28.
In order to advance knowledge, we must reject authority.
The speaker claims that great advances in knowledge necessarily involve rejection of authority. To the extent that political authority impedes such advances, I agree with this claim. Otherwise, in my view, most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority, rather than rejecting authority out of hand.
One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries, the official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the Earth's age is determined to be about 6,000 years. If Western thinkers had continued to yield to the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would never have advanced that mistake.
A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in research that the state viewed as a potential threat. Not surprisingly, during this time period, no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.
However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry, great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of authority. Let’s take modern computing as an example. Only by building on, or embracing, certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semi-conductor technology. In order to make advances, the authority of basic science needed to be accepted.
In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my observation, advances are typically made by embracing and building on the authority of scientific principles and laws that govern our world.
- Otherwise, in my view, most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority, rather than rejecting authority out of hand. 这句话最值得注意的词组是句尾的out of hand，如果望文生义，将其理解为脱手，在此处是不准确的，这句中这个词组是不假思索地、当即的意思。句首的otherwise连接上下文显得比较自然，而且起到了转折的作用。
- One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth.这句话的谓语动词是involve，它之前的一长串是本句的主语，都是围绕这个striking example的；而involve后是what引导的宾语从句，what在这里不表示疑问，而是一个关联代词，指代宾语从句的宾语成分。
- Only by building on, or embracing, certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semi-conductor technology.这一句因为only开头的状语放在了句首，所以后面的句子采用部分倒装，因此谓语动词were放在了主语engineers的前面。此句的Only状语前置是强调达成动作的方式。
这篇作文需要写作者论述知识进步和拒绝权威的关系。作者采用总分总结构写成了全文。第一段总起，复述题目后提出了作者的观点，包含两个方面：一，政治权威会阻碍知识进步，因此为了进步，需要拒绝政治权威；二，除第一点的情况外，其余大多数知识进步都是通过拥护和支持某种权威达成的。第二至五段分别论述了开头提出的两方面观点。二、三段为论点一，先以西方科学家不同意英国国教圣经关于地球年龄、推动地质学进步为例说明质疑并拒绝政治权威致使知识进步，再用近代的苏联政府控制科研的Refusenik运动说明不拒绝政治权威导致科技发展停滞。这一正一反两方面，完整地论述了第一方面观点。第四段则论述不受政治权威影响的其他情况下，拥护和遵循某种形式的权威促进知识进步，支持了作者第二方面的观点。结尾一段总结全文，重申作者观点。