<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html/</link>
<description><![CDATA[中山大學政治經濟系
副教授  劉孟奇


唐宋八大家當中有一位蘇洵，他所寫的「六國論」也是古文中相當好的專業報告範例。（這其實是我在「意識型態咖啡」部落格討論這個主題時，一位署名「魔法設計師」的網友在留言版中所舉出的好例子，在此特別向他致謝。）


蘇洵的「六國論」全文如下：



]]>
	</description>
<language>zh-tw</language>
<generator>Roodo Blog System</generator>
<copyright>All Rights Reserved</copyright>
<atom:link href="http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095-comment.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Sevam,

沒有問題，歡迎轉載！]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-19379911</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:35:19 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[拜讀劉老師此系列文章，回想過去大學的報告經驗，確實發現不少被教授點出的問題即在上述文章指出，也請容許我全文轉至個人部落格，謝謝。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-19378421</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:53:18 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[yanann,

沒有問題，歡迎轉載！]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-19294749</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:44:27 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[謝謝劉老師
實在是獲益良多
請容許我轉錄此三篇文章至個人部落格,謝謝!]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-19286851</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:37:37 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[所長：

sorry，那就<a href="http://www.wretch.cc/blog/Giddens/7181707" target="_blank">〈再貼一次吧〉</a>

光是看文字的話，我比較不喜歡朱宅神，也寫過<a href="http://ricebug.pixnet.net/blog/post/17688172" target="_blank">〈文章〉</a>酸他，原因很像－就算他很會寫（？），也不要把他不會寫的東西貶的一文不值。

（突然發現可以巴著館長的文章把舊文重貼一遍．．．）]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18617747</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:43:24 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Dear ricebug：

1.回報，您提供的超連結失效。
2.其實我自己是認為，九先生(不是九驅長唷)本身也是大頭病症候群的患者之一。

上回有個高中生，說傲謨九先生的文章參加文學比賽得獎，九先生除了譴責高中生抄襲以外，還順便把評審們給好好酸了一頓。
正巧，評審好像就是曉風大師這票人。

雖然當時咖啡館有客人指出，這是屬於舊廠商打壓新廠商的一個亞型，不過我個人是覺得啦，九先生很會寫，張女士也很會寫，就算文人相輕自古皆然，把對方當做大便也實在是沒有必要。就算就策略上而言，攻不下山頭就另立一個山頭是很合理的，但也不用把別的山頭貶的一文不值吧。

害我一直在想，九先生何時會變身成第二個朱宅神?]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18616975</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:01:59 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Jessica,

沒有問題，歡迎轉載！]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18615969</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:39:08 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[劉館長：
拜讀此三篇文章獲益良多。
請問可以轉錄此三篇至個人部落格嗎(全文轉錄,連結)。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18615795</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:46:06 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[coby,

「讀這篇古文->可以學到專業報告格式」(p->q)，在邏輯上既不代表「不讀古文->學不到專業報告格式」(~p->~q)，也不代表「學專業報告格式->要學古文」(q->p)。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18613339</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:37:18 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[這篇古文邏輯好所以要學生讀文言文
不要用白話文取代
這種邏輯可以衍生成...
那個強姦犯性能力強
所以不要關他
讓他多演A片造福人群
是這樣嗎？
現代都沒能寫出有邏輯的白話文嗎？]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18613207</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:05:20 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[另外一個寫作者的聲音：九把刀．<a href="" target="_blank">〈我不崇拜技術，我崇拜的是熱情（4）〉</a>

『有些人擅長站在文化菁英的角度，從文學的「深度」去質疑我的存在價值，這些文化菁英使用的「測量標準」從馬奎斯、張大春、駱以軍、白先勇一直到終於通過嚴肅文學界「認證」的金庸。……

完整引述我將碩士論文改寫而成的書「依然九把刀」中，最後一段話：

不論是實體書或網路書寫都是金字塔的結構，菁英總是極少數的存在。

也因為網路的自由是這塊虛擬空間最大的美好，最不必要的就是打著文學革命的大旗幟，欲發動精緻書寫、精緻閱讀的集體活動，如「救救文學吧！」或「我們才是文學的未來！」之鳴，那種樣子，與其說英勇，不如說自以為是。……』]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18577909</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:14:29 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[augustinus,

沒錯沒錯，這些字彙在學術討論上的含意就是你的排序。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18574477</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:09:52 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[我看到「批評」的時候還是會把它當成正反並陳的近乎中立，和「評論」差不多，比「質疑」弱一點，至少不會到「攻訐」的程度。:p]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18573585</guid>
	<author>augustinus@live.com(augustinus)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:24:38 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[civics,

啊，是你們的「評論」，是評論。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18572957</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:42:18 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[館長大人

我不是批評阿
我只是提"不同意見書"啊]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18572451</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:49:53 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[civics,

(1) 這個，那個，我原來在「看雜誌」上登這系列文章的原標題是：「讀古文，學專業報告格式」。在咖啡館登時，覺得又有副標題很冗長，就把「格式」拿掉了。看到你跟Richter的批評，看來當初還是該把「格式」兩個字留著啊。

(2) 話說回來，如果我們讓學生在讀完六國論之後，試著來分析「外交休兵」政策。或者在讀完「隆中對」之後，試著想像自己是目前某地方選舉的幕僚，要對候選人提出選戰策略，這不也滿有趣的嗎？

我總覺得關鍵不在文本，而在於怎麼教這個文本。會教的話，南海血書也可以拿來當教材啊：）]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18571165</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:15:42 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[我有不同意見。lakatos 的這篇文章我想了好一陣子，第一版的時候我看過。到第二版把古文「六國論」 放進來的時候，我總覺得哪裡怪怪的，又說不出個所以然。後來看到EC & El Keridge 的回應，我再想了想。我發現lakatos 很「機巧」(哈哈)迴避了一些問題，那是館長今天的回應提到的。

很有趣的，語文的教育主旨到底是什麼？我其實也不清楚，但是lakatos將古文範例和「與如何做專題報告」放在一起，似乎意指古文可以這樣上(這就是我所謂的機巧,哈哈)，lakatos最後自己提到需要師資的訓練。

先提一下我自己的某個經驗。我的老師曾經問過我，為什麼以前想念歷史？當時的回答是：想看看古時候的人怎麼生活。我後來對這個答案很不滿意，自己想了又想。覺得似乎不只如此，後來我找到答案了，我真正想知道的是，當時的社會情境、條件是什麼？在任何一個歷史事件裡，促成行為人作成歷史決定的因素是什麼？當我把這些問題想清楚以後，我就知道當時的答案不是我想說的，而是從社會科學的角度去解釋歷史。

回過頭來說，古文教育不可能忽略的重要一點是，當時或後來選文的作者，大部分可能是對當時時局的反應，以現在的話來說，那就是我們對消費卷政策、兩岸問題…等等的看法。如果這樣說是可以被接受的，那麼承擔語文教育的人是否可能做到這一點？我對過去的中國文化教材或儒家倫理等教學，最不能接受的一點就是，那是完全忽略脈絡的、灌輸的教條教育。反過來說，一個語文教育者要做到對各家思潮的介紹或類似蘇格拉底的對話教育，那可能是哲學教育，而非語文教育了。同理，要讓教導作文的老師做到對事務本質的分析，是否可能，大大攸關他所受的教育，所以我才說lakatos很機巧的避開這個問題(哈哈,冒犯了館長大人阿)。古文教育或是搶救國文教育聯盟的那些人，完全迴避這些問題，這才是讓人無力的部分。

至於考作文，現在也考阿，結果就是大家去補作文!!!]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18570861</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:07:07 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[我的高中生涯雖然讀遍古文觀止
但是老師還是用起承轉合來分析這些古論文
加上英文寫作未談及詳細段落格式
又破題法是老師明言不鼓勵的寫法
還是離不開國中小開始背灌輸的起承轉合]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18570531</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:59:06 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[EC,

我完全同意您所說的，從入學考試所產生的問題，就回到入學考試去解決。

事實上，我這篇文章所舉的例子，是可以拿來考「分析」與「改寫」的。

不過，在台灣，要回到考試制度來解決這個問題，第一是教育部要敢把責任扛起來，明確決定中文需重視實用的教育目標，同時既然「考試引導教學」，就不能把「考什麼，怎麼考」完全交給大考中心，讓大考中心像獨立王國一般的運作。第二則是要訓練出足夠數量與能力的閱卷老師。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18569955</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:44:55 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[It is useless to blame whose fault, but it needs to find what went wrong and to propose feasible methods to solve the problems. 
Without learning basic writing skill, logic and ability in elementary and secondary schools, it is impossible to ask students to write a good publishable article in post-secondary schools. 
In the United States, educators have discovered that writing is one of the biggest problems for college students even in many elite universities. They also discovered that tests can also lead teaching methods of teachers. This is especially true in SAT test. Thus one way to solve this problem is to add one test section to write essay in SAT test, which is composed one-third test scores (800 out of 2,400 possible scores) since 2006. In order to write good essay, students, who plan to attend good colleges, have no choice but reading more books other than textbooks. Yet, at the present time writing in K-12 still does not have dramatically improvement in any reports. However we can predict that writing skill, logic and ability should improve gradually for the generations to come.
Are there any feasible proposed methods to solve writing problem in Taiwan at this time? If not, it is impossible to solve this problem in the near future.]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18569093</guid>
	<author>eachouchen@yahoo.com(EC)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:51:18 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[There are a lot of tried solutions at the college level that work including writing center, writing core course(s), writing seminars, and integrating writing to academic curriculum design, to name a few. 

The complaint about college students' writing incompetency is a pain shared by professors across nations and disciplines. In the United States, there has been a decline of writing competence for year. Professors teaching freshmen blame high schools for not doing a good job, high schools blame middle schools, and the chain of blame goes all the way down to pre-K. Ironically, there is generally a good balance between creativity and argument building in the high school reading/writing curriculum in US. But this balance does not seem to help much. There are a lot of explanations about what went wrong before college. But universities have to ready their students for work or grad school. Something must be done. With some coordinated efforts across departments, students can become a competent professional and/or academic writer in fours years.

I have to admit that I don't really know what is going on in Taiwanese high schools anymore. But I am not convinced that getting K12 schools to emphasize more on argument building can be a more effective solution than developing well coordinated campus-wide writing initiatives in our universities.]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18537231</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:42:52 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[You have raised a very good point, but how to solve this problem? It does not matter what kind of article we learn, but how we learn. The process of good research paper should go through reading/writing/critique/presentation. In other words, it includes literature review, analyzing and writing what has been found as well as discussing, self-critique, expert critique, and plain language presentation. 
In all of them, the most important part is self-critique. In the learning process, in order to do self-critique, a well-trained instructor should be able to know what went wrong of that article and give hints to the author for self-correction.
Without proper training, it is impossible to ask any students, who have never written any research paper in grammar and secondary schools, to write a readable research paper in post-secondary schools. In order to teach students to write research paper, instructors should know how to write good research paper first. Lack of qualified instructors to teach how to write research paper in grammar and secondary schools is the main problem in Taiwan right now. 
It is a skill which should be taught in the early learning age. It is also a long learning process. There is no magic bullet to solve this problem in one day. All in all, it requires building up this skill through basic foundation of education.]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18528603</guid>
	<author>eachouchen@yahoo.com(EC)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:50:30 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Very interesting point. The reading/writing education in Taiwan indeed puts too much emphasis on the literary side. However, I am not sure if modifying the reading curriculum can help much. In addition to clarity, a good presenter needs to have a good handle of his/her audience, including knowing how the audience process new information and the amount of new info they can process, without sacrificing the complexity and richness of the main argument. Getting such a handle takes time and exercise in the real world.

As for the relationship between reading/writing education and an individual's ability to deliver a clear presentation, based on my experience, students with quantitative undergraduate majors (engineering, finance etc.) generally do well (not superb, just well) in presenting a story with a clear question-analysis-conclusion structure. However, they tend to fail miserably in explaining why this story is relevant to the audience.]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18510565</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:35:53 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[iamrealbb,

沒有問題，歡迎轉載。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18510395</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:35:36 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[教授講的真好,請問可以轉載個人版嗎?
看了幾次以後實在很想問:
為什麼學校都沒教過這麼有用的寫文章技巧呢?
(我猜想可能是因為考試型態的關係?)]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18510087</guid>
	<author>bbshangpo@gmail.com(iamrealbb)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:45:41 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[看完之後立刻把以前國立編譯館的教科書翻出來看
只看到以前做的密密麻麻的註釋
老師不會去管文章邏輯結構的問題吧
重要的是你要知道翻成白話是啥意思
外加一些艱澀詞彙的含意

館長所言甚是]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18458707</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:21:41 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[latifa,

歡迎轉載。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18454175</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:09:02 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[劉館長：
請問可以轉錄上中下三篇至個人部落格嗎？
讀完三篇獲益良多。
會全文轉錄並且附連結的。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18453265</guid>
	<author>phyllisyu1217@gmail.com(latifa)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:41:46 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[搶救國文的夫子們讀完劉館長三篇文章後寫出來的專業報告，結論如此：所以我們更要多讀古文了！]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18451553</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:23:42 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Richer,

您提出的問題，其實可以變成非常不錯的學生報告題目以及教案。不知道有沒有在中學教書的館友有興趣試試？]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18448255</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:30:36 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[其實蘇洵的六國論，不合事實處甚多。尤其古文中的數字，都是隨便亂掰。例如：「其實百倍」、「今日割五城，明日割十城」、「嘗五戰於秦，二敗而三勝」。這些數字都只是比喻用，缺乏事實根據。

史實上，秦之所以滅六國，靠的正是武力征服。一開始不打齊、燕，是因為國土不相鄰，遠交近攻。並非兩國不賂秦。我無意在此一一考證蘇洵的謬誤。我只是要提醒，蘇洵這篇文章本身就是一個大的比喻。他的目的是「創造」歷史故事來諷刺時勢，亦即諷刺宋朝「賂遼」。這樣的手法對當今媒體並不陌生。

這篇文章厲害的是，扭曲事實，但型式上符合邏輯。只是，正確的邏輯並不能使錯誤的前提變成正確的推論。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18448119</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:00:18 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[hungc2,

歡迎轉載。

Richard,

謝謝您的資訊。]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18447137</guid>
	<author>monchilio@hotmail.com(lakatos)</author>	<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:51:20 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[這些簡報邏輯與技巧
小弟在練習GMAT AWA短文寫作時都有練到
建議版主可參考~]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18446459</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:59:38 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title>回應：讀古文，學專業報告（下）：六國論</title>
	<description><![CDATA[劉館長：
      請問可以全文轉載嗎？ 上中下三篇 ^^"]]>
	</description>
	<link>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html</link>
	<guid>http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/8196095.html#comment-18445745</guid>
		<category>文章回應</category>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:47:03 +0800</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>