It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.
The author claims that it is a fault to have a theory without data. In my view, this claim is too extreme and unfairly ignores other aspects of theories that are lack of data.
I concede that it is more persuasive that a theory having potent data to support it. The nature of a theory is to understand the phenomena and therefore provide us with the ability to maneuver and predict future events. If there are no substantial data to uphold a theory, it is hard for people to trust the power of a theory. Also, if a theory having precise data supported it, the probability that the theory is faulty theory can be lower. For example, in ancient times, the quack usually treated patients with their suspicious method, it is hard for people to trust them without successful cases that they have cured people.
However, there still have other reasons to deem that pure theory is useful. First, an imaginative theory can pave the road for descendants to conduct further exploration, whether or not it will be proved to be true or false. On one hand, successful scientific research usually depends on the persevering of trial-an-error. Even though a preconceived theory is subverted by future evidence, it still has its contribution. After all, it helps scientists eliminate a possible faulty road, so that they can modify or conceive other ways to solve their problems in the future without step into the same faulty road in this “imaginative theory. On the other, many correct theories are substantiated by concrete data discovered in the future. For example, Einstein’s general relativity, at first, is merely derived by pure assumptions. It predicts that the light nearby the sun will be distorted by the gravity of the sun. Although this revolutionary and pure theory is suspected by many people, the phenomena of light distortion are observed from the sophisticated instrument subsequently.
Furthermore, a theory is valuable because it is the product of humans. Imagination is one precious possession of human beings, and the inventing a pure theory is the manifestation of the ability. Just like the invention of artists, namely, painting, sculptures, and literature, a theory is also a brainchild of a maven. No matter it has practical purposes or not, it is valuable for us to preserve and encourage people to excavate their imaginative abilities.
To sum up, although a theory with compelling data is more practical and has more probability to be proved as correct, it is unjustifiable to say that a theory without data is a mistake. Whether or not a theory be proved true or false, it still has contributions to human society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 172, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...endants to conduct further exploration, whether or not it will be proved to be true or false. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 619, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '”' seems to be missing
... step into the same faulty road in this “imaginative theory. On the other, many c...
^
Line 9, column 187, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'Whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: Whether
...hat a theory without data is a mistake. Whether or not a theory be proved true or false, it st...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, still, therefore, after all, for example, in my view, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2205.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 443.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97742663657 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95965117547 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489841986456 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 714.6 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8925208923 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.227272727 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1363636364 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04545454545 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0759044894878 0.243740707755 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0283877128871 0.0831039109588 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0349071996166 0.0758088955206 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0551079827925 0.150359130593 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0220291401169 0.0667264976115 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.