In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Almost every new invention in every field is somehow connected with the previous achievements in that field. It is either continuation of something invented in the past or contradiction of what was earlier established. Thus I mostly agree with the claim that every new achievement in each field has somehow been influenced by earlier contributions in that field.
First of all no one can do much contribution in any field without being familiar of the history of that field. Since getting acquaint with some field and understanding previous contributions, we are becoming informed enough and only then we are capable to invest on that field. Saying, if one does not know the rules of physics and is not familiar with the rich history of this science, than he/she can not even solve basic physic problem, not talking about any significant contribution.
Many can argue that there were many inventions in the history which were done by chance without being influenced by previous information. However I will not admit this stance, even inventions done "by chance" have strong basis related to the previous attainments. For example the famous invention of Archimedes, about determining volume of the object by sinking it in the water, which many admit to be done by chance. Even if it was fortuity for him to do this invention, we should also admit that without enough knowledge in physics he would not be able to explain the result of the experiment.
Others can bring examples when many scientists with their contributions have disclaimed the previous achievements. Surely there were a plethora of such cases. However I argue that these contributions, which incidentally almost always had revolutionary influence on the future of its field, have been effected with the previous achievements. Let us consider Kopernik, who was one of the first astronomers who disagreed with the previous hypothesis of universe form and argued that it was the earth which rotates around the sun and not vice versa. However it will be naïve to think that he was not influenced by the previous views of astronomy. Simply this views influenced him negatively, thus he has proved their invalidity.
To sum up, I believe that every new invention in any field is influenced by the previous results on that field. Sometimes this influence makes contributors to improve preceding achievements and get newer and more refined result. Another case is when getting familiar with the previous achievements and views based on them, contributor finds flaws and incorrectness and comes with new and revolutionary thesis.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Almost every new invention in every field is somehow connected with the previous achievements in that field. It is either continuation of something invented in the past or contradiction of what was earlier established. Thus I mostly agree with the claim that every new achievement in each field has somehow been influenced by earlier contributions in that field.
First of all no one can do much contribution in any field without being familiar of the history of that field. Since getting acquaint with some field and understanding previous contributions, we are becoming informed enough and only then we are capable to invest on that field. Saying, if one does not know the rules of physics and is not familiar with the rich history of this science, than he/she can not even solve basic physic problem, not talking about any significant contribution.
Many can argue that there were many inventions in the history which were done by chance without being influenced by previous information. However I will not admit this stance, even inventions done "by chance" have strong basis related to the previous attainments. For example the famous invention of Archimedes, about determining volume of the object by sinking it in the water, which many admit to be done by chance. Even if it was fortuity for him to do this invention, we should also admit that without enough knowledge in physics he would not be able to explain the result of the experiment.
Others can bring examples when many scientists with their contributions have disclaimed the previous achievements. Surely there were a plethora of such cases. However I argue that these contributions, which incidentally almost always had revolutionary influence on the future of its field, have been effected with the previous achievements. Let us consider Kopernik, who was one of the first astronomers who disagreed with the previous hypothesis of universe form and argued that it was the earth which rotates around the sun and not vice versa. However it will be naïve to think that he was not influenced by the previous views of astronomy. Simply this views influenced him negatively, thus he has proved their invalidity.
To sum up, I believe that every new invention in any field is influenced by the previous results on that field. Sometimes this influence makes contributors to improve preceding achievements and get newer and more refined result. Another case is when getting familiar with the previous achievements and views based on them, contributor finds flaws and incorrectness and comes with new and revolutionary thesis.
