请教老易 culture smart vs science intelligent

一叶小舟

culture smart vs science intelligent

这是今年cctv大学组的命题演讲题目, 知道老易是思辩奇才, 特请教两个问题

一,如何给culture smart和science intelligent下定义?

二, 偏向culture的话,用哪些例子作为切入点有深度有说服力呢;偏向science呢? 无偏向呢?

问题不止两个,先提这两个关键的吧,

大家有什么想法都来说说哈

[ 本帖最后由 一叶小舟 于 2009-6-18 14:03 编辑 ]

一叶小舟

谢谢 老易

查到相关的信息, 此次出题的目的是为了传承和传播文化.要求写的是三分钟的演讲稿, 按VOA慢速英语和常速英语的速度, 三分钟330--340的单词正好, 篇幅不够再多说科技, 所以偏重写了文化.

也不能说是文化和科技的整合吧,  我个人觉得文化是大背景,把科技融入文化的背景中.

不善思辩. 不过我也觉得后面部分展开不够, 有点牵强. 利用科技除了保护,还有修复,再现文化,从而到传承和传播文化的目的, 这样会不会好些呢?

[ 本帖最后由 一叶小舟 于 2009-6-26 00:52 编辑 ]

josholily

原帖由 果行育德 于 2009-6-20 10:51 发表
看看这个：http://www.ebookee.com/The-Smart ... Series-_237670.html
http://pixhost.ws/avaxhome/31/3d/000b3d31_medium.jpeg

"owerful."
--Mary  ...

culture smart vs science intelligent 的中文命题是啥类？
上头引用的这本书的是通常人们认为intelligence=smart,但作者Hayman认为一般人对smart的定义是由偏见的，通过这个问题对美国的社会问题做了一番尖锐的剖析。
命题跟这本书有关联么？

josholily

越看越糊涂。

josholily

我没看懂这题目的意思

一叶小舟

刚拿到题目时,我自然而然想到的是象nature vs nurtture 一类题, 但是对于概念还是模糊的

记得去年的题是1+1=2? 即 does one plus one equal two?
其中一个学生在演讲稿里用了一例子  one mainland plus one taiwan equals one integral china去反证1+1不等于2, 他这篇文章拿去请教老外.
老外看了说自己连题都看不懂. 他认为一加一就等于二, 毫无疑问的啊, 再看内容更不懂了, 太具有中国特色了.

cctv出的题一向结合时世形势, 所以我看了老易的回帖,第一反应就想到科学的发展观, 与时俱进啊.

[ 本帖最后由 一叶小舟 于 2009-6-21 13:06 编辑 ]

果行育德

看看这个：http://www.ebookee.com/The-Smart-Culture-Society-Intelligence-and-Law-Critical-America-Series-_237670.html


"Powerful."
--Mary Frances Berry, Journal of American History

"A painstakingly researched, scientific, psychological, sociocultural, and constitutional history of race. The Smart Culture is one of our generation's most powerful indictments of insidious racism and meritocracies."
--The Law and Politics Book Review

"A passionate attack on pervasive American cultural assumptions of natural inequality. The book provides a fine history of antiblack discrimination and of the racist and nativist bases of the developers of standardized intelligence tests."
--Choice

What exactly is intelligence? Is it social achievement? Professional success? Is it common sense? Or the number on an IQ test?

Interweaving engaging narratives with dramatic case studies, Robert L. Hayman, Jr., has written a history of intelligence that will forever change the way we think about who is smart and who is not. To give weight to his assertion that intelligence is not simply an inherent characteristic but rather one which reflects the interests and predispositions of those doing the measuring, Hayman traces numerous campaigns to classify human intelligence. His tour takes us through the early craniometric movement, eugenics, the development of the IQ, Spearman's "general" intelligence, and more recent works claiming a genetic basis for intelligence differences.

What Hayman uncovers is the maddening irony of intelligence: that "scientific" efforts to reduce intelligence to a single, ordinal quantity have persisted--and at times captured our cultural imagination--not because of their scientific legitimacy, but because of their longstanding political appeal. The belief in a natural intellectual order was pervasive in "scientific" and "political" thought both at the founding of the Republic and throughout its nineteenth-century Reconstruction. And while we are today formally committed to the notion of equality under the law, our culture retains its central belief in the natural inequality of its members. Consequently, Hayman argues, the promise of a genuine equality can be realized only when the mythology of "intelligence" is debunked--only, that is, when we recognize the decisive role of culture in defining intelligence and creating intelligence differences. Only culture can give meaning to the statement that one person-- or one group--is smarter than another. And only culture can provide our motivation for saying it.

With a keen wit and a sharp eye, Hayman highlights the inescapable contradictions that arise in a society committed both to liberty and to equality and traces how the resulting tensions manifest themselves in the ways we conceive of identity, community, and merit.

没看过全文，不过好像西人也赞同文化对科学、法律起着决定性作用。正如丘成桐教授所说：数学研究方向取决于个人的文化素养。个人感觉这应该不是我们习惯认为的辩证统一的俗套观点，而是Culture有一种笼罩的特性，不管我们愿不愿意承认。

paisley

还要补充一下：

science intelligent这个词组也很怪。我用google和yahoo（这个用的是美国yahoo，所以完全没有中文结果）分别搜索，根本就没有这样的词组！

同时出现的情况只有一种“science intelligent design”，还是因为science intelligence（人工智能）这个词组后面跟着design，所以改了词性。

出题目的人是不是望文生义想当然啊？

paisley

我觉得还是hi5说的比较靠谱，虽然延伸得够广的，都扯到school smart上了哈。

说实在的，这题目真的很怪异。culture smart这个词组在英文场景里很少见，我昨天看到这个帖子还琢磨了半天，把它和science intelligent放在一起到底是什么意思。

常见的词组是street smart，相对应的是book smart。一个是人情练达混出来的智慧，一个是读书万卷悟出来的智慧。这两个词组都是形容个人的，很少作宏观用途。从这种构词上说，culture smart也应该用来形容个人才对，很难想象怎么就和science intelligent这个好似机器人之类的命题联系在一起了。

我刚才google了一下"culture smart"，出来的全部都是"CCTV演讲赛题目"。再去掉science搜索，得出的结果中再去掉来源于中国的，也就是纯英文环境下的来源。最后的结果：culture smart的意思是“让你充分认识另一个国度的文化”，基本上都是旅游书套系的大标题。要硬译，就是“对人家的文化放聪明点！”

说实话，虽然这个culture smart vs. science intelligent是朝廷台出的题目，我还是忍不住怀疑一下出题的人到底明不明白他用的词是什么意思。

[ 本帖最后由 paisley 于 2009-6-20 02:31 编辑 ]

qsqsqsqs

鲸版说得很好。法律的确是可以和科学相互比较，来谈哪个更重要的东西。正好昨晚读一本小册子《哈佛琐记》，中有一段，论述相关，更有启发。

书中谈到1978年流亡中的俄国作家索尔仁尼琴在哈佛的演讲。书中记录，索氏的演讲有一段谈到：

“索氏洞察到：西方社会组成的形式端赖法律的保障与约束，但到头来法律往往成了最终诉诸的价值。他很不客气地说道：一个……集权的社会，缺乏客观法治的保障，固然令人畏惧；但一个处处依赖法律条文，而缺乏精神内涵的社会，同样不值得人们过活。科学与技术并无法挽救西方社会的颓丧，只有彻底改变人类对自己以及对宇宙的观点，才是解决之道……所以唯有返归（或重建）一个以超越力量（神）为中心的世界观，才能拯救人类空前的浩劫。”

不过谈到这里，已经超越了culture smart和 science intelligent的比较……