“The study of an academic discipline alters the way we perceive the world. After studying the discipline, we see the same world as before, but with different eyes."
范文：
Whether or not the study of an academic discipline changes the way the learners perceive the world depends on who the learners are, how they learn, and other factors. That we see the same world as before but with different eyes virtually assumes that there is an “objective” world, or the same world, which is the fundamental cornerstone of science, in what we accepted sense. That is to say it prerequisites that a world exists independently upon human cognition. This, however, goes directly against science because science basically denies an unknown power outside of nature that controls or exerts influences on the “objective” world. Therefore, science is inherently paradox in the discussion of the world and human cognition.
Woven in the issue above is the long controversy about matters and minds, in which such philosophers as Kant and Hegel more entangled than unrevealed the mystery. The learning of a certain academic discipline stands for, in essence, the knowledge human has accumulated. Thus the issue of whether the study of academic disciplines alters the ways an individual human being perceives the world is the controversy on the relationship between matters and minds. Without knowledge, hardly can anybody understand anything about the world, neither within nor without. But knowledge is diverse in nature; as a result human beings have distinct understanding of “the world”, which is assumed to be detached from human bias. In this sense, it seems to be plausible that knowledge does alter the way humans see the world. For instance, before the advent of the modern astronomy, the solar was considered in certain cultures as the deity. When astrology was deeply implanted in the minds of some people, the solar system was deemed to be the omens of the fatal of a certain human being or groups of people. But who knows whether in the future, after 5000 years say, our offspring will discard what we faithfully believed to be astronomy the same way our forefather discarded the religious doctrines about stars? At that time, will the sun the same as it is today? Nobody is boldly enough to give a conclusive answer to such questions.
Overwhelming accumulated evidence seems to lead us to the general conclusion that the study of academic disciplines alters the way we observe the sky, earth, ocean, mountain, plants, and animals around us and human beings per se. a butterfly in the field is different in the eye of a trained biologist from that in a toddler whose entire knowledge comes from the fairy and story of her grandmother. But this evidence is less convincing in that we are yet unable to conclude whether the biologist still holds the same understanding of a butterfly that she has in childhood. That is whether the training of biology has changed her understanding of the butterfly, the exact one the biologist witnessed in her childhood? It is clearly impossible to present before the biologist the same butterfly, in literal sense. It is totally possible that while the biologist has fledgling “scientific” understanding of the butterfly-knowing its life span and habitats and the like-she still faithfully believes what her grandmother told her about the butterfly. In this case, to what extent has the study of biology changed the biologist’s understanding of the butterfly?
The deeper we dig, the less light we will see in the discussing about this tantalizingly simple issue, which is in essence as vexing as vexing things can be. It is possible to have two clearly paradoxical answers to the same question. On the one hand, evidence seems to support that the study of an academic discipline is able to change the way one perceives. On the other hand, the study of an academic discipline might confirm the way one perceives the world. Take the learning of Darwinism as a case in point. Before learning the select-evolution mechanism, or the science about the origination of beings, I deemed that the animals and plants exist because noting. That is to say, species come into being for unknown reasons. But after I read much about Darwin’s theory, I know that some people had different ideas about this question. When my high school teachers and the scientists in my university all told me that Darwinism is part of the “science”, I changed to believe that all creatures in the world might once shared the same ancestors, in the form of unsubstantiated bacteria or something else. Nevertheless, today, I still believe what I believed in childhood that plants and animals come from nowhere. That is I have learnt Darwinism but I cast a skeptical eye on it. In my case, the study of the origination of species has once changed my way of thinking. Nonetheless, it has not changed my understanding of the world. In case of the fundamentalist who has also a knowledge of evolutionism the paradox is rather protruding.
In sum, it is hard to shape a conclusive generalization about whether the study of an academic discipline changes the way one perceives the world. Distinct answers to the same question exist, and both are plausible. Perhaps the world per se is always paradoxical.
本文由3COME考试频道编辑精心为您收集整理，仅供大家参考，祝您考试顺利。
