Is it cultural intelligence or scientific intelligence? Do you want the intelligence brought by culture or science? Culture emphasizes smart ways. Be smart and have cultural wisdom. Similarly, science is a way of wisdom, to be smart, to be scientific and smart.

Four examples for reference only-

1.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests and distinguished judges:

This is xxxx from E8 10. I am honored to share my views on cultural intelligence or scientific intelligence with you.

This question is like mom and dad, who do you like better? Most of us will choose our mother. When we were young, we always told us that Mother Song was the best in the world.

Here I want to make an analogy. Let's compare culture to mother and science to father.

Once upon a time, like the call of nature, we liked our mother for nearly five thousand years, and she gave us the longest history of civilization in the world. It is no exaggeration to say that the culture of our country is the most splendid in the world. Facts have proved that there is a great distance between us and our father's scientific intelligence. So he only gave us four great inventions of ancient China, including gunpowder, compass, papermaking and printing, and we didn't make full use of them.

On the contrary, our western brother countries obviously like their father's scientific wisdom, because his father gave them a lot of technology to help them become developed countries.

At the same time, we are always proud of our culture. For example, our rich cultural heritage makes our civilization like a shining star in the dark. When people mention human civilization, we have to mention our China, because China culture is the most historic and splendid culture in the world.

But, by the way, our technology has fallen far behind western countries.

Unfortunately, one day, they attacked us with our own invention powder. Our father sent his sons to western countries to beat us up, because if we fall behind, we will be punished by those who are better than us. We are indifferent to this, because all we have is culture, not high-tech defense.

Obviously, God is fair. When God closes a door, he will open another window for you.

Here, I want to share a story that my history teacher told me. Once upon a time, there was a couple who had two children. The elder brother liked reading. He could get a lot of knowledge from books in his study. The younger brother was a behaviorist. No matter what problems he faced, he would take action to solve them. He believed that practice was the only criterion for testing truth. So he made a plan to travel around the world. After decades, they all became adults. My brother became a teacher in his hometown (in the local area). He taught Confucian culture to many children. He taught people knowledge and culture. However, his younger brother came home with many manual skills. For example, he learned how to make small inventions, such as windmills to help local farmers irrigate farmland and round wheels to make transportation more convenient.

All right, let's move on. Like these two brothers, who is smarter in culture or science? The answer is that they are both very good. They are as close as two brothers and sisters, and the two brothers can never be separated.

2.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for your attention. I am glad to share my views on this topic with you. Well, my topic is "cultural intelligence or scientific intelligence".

When this topic first caught my attention, I thought of the great artist Da Vinci. As we all know, Leonardo da Vinci has a talent for painting, so many of his famous paintings are impressive, such as the famous portrait Mona Lisa. However, he is not only an artist, but also a great inventor and scientist. Everything he saw, heard or experienced was an opportunity to learn new things, in other words, everything fascinated him. So according to his notebook, we found many imaginative inventions and some theories about optics, which really helped Leonardo da Vinci's paintings to be more vivid. Therefore, I believe that culture and science can be compatible, not substituted.

In my opinion, scientific cleverness may be cleverness, and cultural cleverness may be wisdom. Someone once said that the elimination of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization, which proves that we need smart cultural guidance. On the one hand, culture provides ideological motivation for science and technology, on the other hand, culture prevents the extreme tendency of science and technology. However, there is no doubt that science and technology are the highest leaders of productive forces. Without advanced science and technology, there will be no achievements and progress. The striking feature of science is its commitment to open exploration. Then, my conclusion is that science and culture are not antagonistic, on the contrary, they are complementary.

Life is a multiple-choice exam, so I believe the answer is not the only definite thing. I want to compare science to the composition of painting and culture to the color of painting; Science is like the heart, and culture is our thoughts. Culture promotes science and science develops culture.

3. How many times have we not been told that the research of physical science cannot give culture? It doesn't touch the higher level problems in life; To make matters worse, constant investment in scientific research often leads to a narrow and paranoid belief that scientific methods can be used to explore various truths. How many times has a person had reason to observe that there is no answer to a thorny argument that is more telling than calling its author a "pure scientific expert"? Second, I'm afraid we can't talk about this form of opposing science education in the past tense; Don't we want to be told that this "pure literary guidance and education" is not only omitted, but also banned, which is an obvious example of scientific narrowness?

I think we must all agree to the first suggestion. Because culture certainly means something completely different from learning or skills. It means having an ideal and the habit of critically estimating the value of things by comparing with theoretical standards. A perfect culture should provide a complete life theory based on a clear understanding of the possibilities and limitations of life.

What does science provide for humanities: integrating body and culture

What does science provide for humanities? This paper examines some deep-seated problems faced by current cultural research methods. It pays special attention to the achievements of postmodernism, but it also acknowledges the serious problems of the most severe critics of postmodernism. In short, for the progress of humanities, its scholars need to take seriously the contribution of natural science-especially the study of human cognition-which shows that any separation of spirit and body is completely untenable. The author suggests that humanists should begin to make use of these scientific discoveries without acknowledging that science has the final say on morality, religion, art and literature. Questioning deep-rooted dogmas such as the "whiteboard" theory of nature, strong social constructivism and the ideal of non-substantive rationality, what science provides for humanities replaces the differences of humanities with a more comprehensive cultural research method.

Technology and culture both influence each other equally. Technology is regarded as an improvement of our life, but on the other hand, in our developing society, culture has appeared in every invention, whether it is eye-catching or not. Technology is increasingly becoming the focus of people's daily attention, but culture is the decisive factor to determine whether it is necessary to make improvements. There are countless viewpoints and perspectives to examine this situation, but there is no doubt that technology and culture shape each other. Culture will always be a part of our society and lifestyle. It is almost impossible to come up with an idea that is not influenced by culture. Imagine our life without cars, televisions and computers. This will be an example of everyday life without technology. People can work happily in this atmosphere, but technology has changed our lives forever. Technology has changed our pace and view on education. Students will have to go to the library and spend a lot of time looking for information about their homework, but with technology, students can find almost anything on their computers at home and by accessing the Internet. Technology has undoubtedly become a decisive factor in our lives, but culture has shaped technology. Technology is made and used in such diverse ways, because many people who use today's technology come from all walks of life and have different needs, so in order to make up for this, technology must adapt to all different cultures.

4.

Cultural intelligence or scientific intelligence

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests and distinguished judges:

I am honored to share my views on cultural intelligence and scientific intelligence with all the audience present here.

As we all know, with the development of science and technology, our contemporary life and society are undergoing profound changes. However, under the background of positive results brought by science and technology, are we aware of cultural alienation and deviation? In the process of ultra-high-speed urbanization, where should cultural intelligence and scientific intelligence go as social development problems? My point of view is clear, and that is cultural wisdom.

Science and technology is the supreme leader of productive forces, which has been generally accepted by the broad masses of the people. Without the development of science and technology, it is impossible to create achievements in the cultivation of contemporary social civilization, and society will stagnate. Due to the progress of science and technology, especially the intelligent development represented by robots, unmanned driving and digital platforms, it has brought great convenience to human production and daily life and promoted social progress.

However, under any circumstances, we should not admit that while science and technology have brought prosperity, there have also been a series of environmental and social ethical problems such as environmental pollution, ozone layer destruction, greenhouse effect, human cloning and nuclear deterrence. So, how can we spare no effort to prevent these problems from getting worse in various possibilities? What kind of development model will science and technology be in the future?

The answer is that we need the guidance of a smart culture. When we talk about culture, we may regard it as tradition and history, but how can the intelligence of science and technology be guided by cultural intelligence? What I want to say here is that culture is not a pond full of stagnant water, but a dynamic system. We must never come to the conclusion that culture is "the precipitation of history", but more clearly, culture determines our present and future. The starting point of any kind or form of modernization has not changed except the beginning of culture. Otherwise, modernization will inevitably fall into the situation of water without resources and trees without roots. The development of science and technology is no exception.

The ultra-high-speed development of contemporary science and technology contributes not to the efforts of science and technology itself, but to the ideological motivation and ideological motivation provided by cultural wisdom. Karl Poopper once said that the destruction of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization. Obviously, if this promotion is ignored, science and technology may have a far-reaching impact.

Cultural wisdom leads our society to stability and prosperity. We need cultural wisdom, because on the one hand, culture provides ideological motivation for science and technology, on the other hand, culture prevents the extreme tendency of science and technology. The problems of human cloning, space utilization and nuclear weapons brought by contemporary science and technology call for fair development in the cultural field. The culture lacking wisdom and extreme science and technology will pose a great threat to our human survival and world peace.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I think cultural wisdom is our "root", and we need to support the root of our belief. The denial of the root reflects history and our human existence. Therefore, only a solution based on cultural wisdom can contribute to the just development of science and technology, the continuous progress, prosperity and peace of human society.

Thank you!

Science itself and human culture as a part of it will benefit from scientific stories that encourage wider participation in scientific exploration. Such a story, based on the careful analysis of scientific methods, is put forward here. This is a scientific story of telling stories and modifying stories. The story of science as a story shows that science can and should serve human beings with three different functions: providing stories that may increase (but will never guarantee) human well-being, serving as a support link for human exploration and story telling, and demonstrating the commitment to skepticism and the resulting open and continuous exploration of possible things. Some practical considerations will further develop and accept the science of such a story as a widely shared connection of human activities.

Cultural intelligence or scientific intelligence?

Science and culture

What is science? What does it have to do with our life as individuals? Other aspects of our social and cultural community?

What is our future? ... our role and responsibility for the future? Is empirical investigation helpful to this kind of problem?

What is the relationship between empirical understanding and other understanding? Are they necessarily opposite, or can they complement each other beneficially?

Division and Specialization of Functions —— Scientific School and Cultural School

The purpose is to keep the traditional method of teaching science, but adjust the quality of this strict education according to students' ability and attitude. This means that for students with weak physique, it is more educational efficient to spend one or two hours a day studying science in a strict "didactic" classroom environment than to spend a longer time studying in a less structured classroom environment. At least, from a lot of experience (the experience of elite students), traditional methods are an effective and efficient way to teach science.

The general understanding of system efficiency puts forward some principles that may lead to higher efficiency of science education. Perhaps the most common way for human (and biological) systems to improve efficiency is the principle of "division of labor", which was first expounded by economist Adam Smith. The division of labor increases the complexity of the organization through the specialization of functions and the coordination of these specialized functions. Smith's famous example involves a pin factory, where the process of making pins is broken down into many simpler and more specialized continuous steps; These steps are coordinated by managers, which leads to a great improvement in efficiency (measured by the number of pins produced by each person every day) [8].

When we look at modern schools from this angle, we can see that there has been considerable specialization. For example, teachers specialize according to the age, professional knowledge and management responsibilities of the children they teach. Schools are also divided into majors according to students' age stratification and academic ability (sometimes according to students' gender or socio-economic class). However, logically speaking, there is a further division of functions. My suggestion is that by introducing functional division between science education and so-called cultural education, the efficiency of science teaching can be improved. Cultural education will include art, sports, morality, social aspects of school education and any other educational goals, such as good civic awareness.

Schools may have an internal function divided into "science schools" and "cultural schools". This division of functions should be reflected in physical equipment, independent administrative structure and recruitment of teaching staff of different majors. The characteristics of these departments are the nature of internal evaluation unique to their systems. For example, compared with cultural schools, science schools are relatively narrow in evaluation and pay more attention to examinations. In science schools, the performance of faculty and students will be judged mainly by scientific standards, including formal examination results. Science schools will be different because of their academic spirit and academic expectations. The focus of science school is to instill the ability of abstract system cognition.

For example, an existing school may be physically divided into two parts: science and culture, which are located in different parts of the campus. Every student will spend quite a long time in the "science school" every day (depending on their ability and motivation) and experience traditional, didactic, disciplined and strict academic education, which is the best way to teach real science at the basic level (as far as we know). Teaching in science schools needs to be stratified according to ability and qualification, because it is more efficient than teaching widely mixed classes. Students from different classes can learn from a wide range of common courses (realize the accumulation and transfer of educational credits); However, students with different abilities will involve different topics, different specific subjects and different progress.

The students' remaining time in school will be used for cultural lessons, which will focus on a wider range of aspects and aim at cultivating a more comprehensive and socialized individual. The examinations in cultural schools will be more based on participation, continuous efforts, attitude and attendance. Inevitably, because it has many goals and wider concerns, cultural schools will make many evaluations of their teachers and students. It is also inevitable that these assessments are less clear and more controversial.