In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.
Untrammeled by conventional wisdom, amateurs and beginners in different fields sometimes propose quixotic ideas that could potentially bolster the advancement of that field. It is reasonable to wonder whether, in any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. As far as I'm concerned, this is generally not the case, especially when it comes to rigorous studies such as math, physics, and other natural sciences. Beginners are also unlikely to surpass seasoned experts in academic fields that require practical experiences such as politics. However, when it comes to music and arts, the minds that remain pristine and unshackled might indeed make great contributions.
For sciences such as math and physics that require rigorous reasoning and extensive background knowledge, beginners are unlikely to make crucial contributions since experts are far more familiar with the relevant domain knowledge. For example, one cannot simply come up with the law of relativity or theorem of quantum mechanics if he or she is not familiar with the most basic law of physics - Newton's Law of Gravity. Math amateurs also cannot simply prove Fermat's Last theorem without knowing how to calculate algebra. Since laws and theorems in these sciences all require much background knowledge to be discovered and its validity needs to be rigorously tested, amateurs who only know the basics cannot possibly make great contributions compared to the experts that immerse themselves in more advanced knowledge.
In the field of politics, beginners also cannot compare with the shrewd and experienced experts when it comes to making important contributions. Since political acumen is accumulated through multiple successes and failures and honed through multiple campaigns throughout a politician's life, the naivete of political amateurs is in fact a disadvantage. Also, the connections with interest groups, NGOs, and constituents that politicians secured during his or her campaigns need to be strengthened through time. Since beginners in politics are unlikely to gain these resources in a short amount of time, experts are more likely to make important contributions.
However, in fields such as art and music, amateurs or beginners can contribute greatly since they are often unaware of the conventional restraints and can, therefore, express their raw emotions and talents freely. Take the famous French-American artist and sculptor Nikki de Saint Falle as an example. Without any formal training as an artist, her iconic series of sculptures under the title "Nana" stirred up wide discussion among 20th-century artists and can be seen in various parks nowadays. The eye-catching features of her sculptures were unconstrained by conventional aesthetics and were one of the reasons why her works were considered groundbreaking.
In conclusion, I don't think that in any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. This might hold true for arts and music, but for rigorous sciences such as math and science and fields that require practical experience, experts are more likely to make crucial contributions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 323, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'm
...make important contributions. As far as Im concerned, this is generally not the ca...
^^
Line 5, column 274, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'politicians'' or 'politician's'?
Suggestion: politicians'; politician's
...through multiple campaigns throughout a politicians life, the naivete of political amateurs...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ed groundbreaking. In conclusion, I dont think that in any field of inquiry, the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2717.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 491.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53360488798 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04537140025 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513238289206 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 842.4 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9226061195 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.0 118.986275619 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8421052632 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68421052632 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.378125414483 0.243740707755 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136460014849 0.0831039109588 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.17462037435 0.0758088955206 230% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233518029665 0.150359130593 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136386888761 0.0667264976115 204% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.