The reason for the difference in their opinions between the two children

Because they don't look at things from the same angle.

One is from the size and the other is from the temperature.

The background is different in the morning when the background is a large tree, etc., compared to the larger, and the background at noon is the sky, of course, it is smaller

Because they look at it from a different angle

One is from the size and the other is from the temperature.

Looking at a problem from different angles, philosophically speaking, it is a one-sided view of the problem, and it is not viewed in a dialectical way.

One is from the size, and the other is from the cold and warm.

Incomparable. One says size.

One says temperature.

Lack of understanding of natural phenomena.

Lack of knowledge.

Look at the problem from a different angle.

Which point of view to support depends on your situation. Right"Two children debate the day"The two positions can be carried out in the following two ways:

1. The point of view proposed by Child A may emphasize the actual reality of the situation and the realistic way of thinking. He may believe that the right conclusions can only be drawn if judgments and decisions are made based on facts and facts. He may advocate relying on objective evidence and observations, as well as conclusions reached through reasoning and logical inference.

2. The ideas put forward by child B may be more focused on imagination, creativity and exploration of the unknown. He may advocate going beyond the limits of reality and looking for different possibilities and solutions. He may believe that only by having the courage to try new ideas and ideas can we drive progress and innovation in society.

Which position is closer to the truth depends on the specific situation and issue. Both positions have their own merits and merits, so a comprehensive view might be to consider and combine the merits of both positions in a practical matter. The key is to understand the strengths of each point of view and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Which ruined clan to support to touch a child, it depends on what you think? Everyone's thoughts are different, the angle of standing is different, and the answers given are also different.

To refute the second child's point of view, it is necessary to understand what his point of view is. In "Two Children Debate the Sun", the first child thinks that the moon is bigger than the tree, while the second child thinks that the tree is bigger than the moon. If you want to refute the second child's argument, there are two ways to consider the following:

1.Rebuttal by factual data: The size of the moon has been scientifically measured, and its diameter is 3474 kilometers.

And the tallest tree in the world is the California long pine, which is about a meter tall. By comparing the data, it can be proved that the moon is much larger than the tree, which is why the moon can rise above the tree. 2.

Counter the argument with the practical implications of the argument: the child may have come to the conclusion after seeing that the moon is smaller than the tree, but this is an optical illusion. The idea of rebuttal can be based on the child's erroneous calculation process, which leads him to re-examine the problem from another angle.

You can let him see for himself what has changed in the moon, whether it looks like it has become smaller than a tree, but in fact it has not changed. At the same time, it can help him realize that the human senses can be disturbed by many factors, so it is necessary not to draw conclusions based on intuition alone, but to use scientific methods and knowledge correctly.

This truth tells us that the world is very big, and not everything you can understand (Confucius), to put it bluntly, you need to keep learning and accumulating. There used to be no answers, but now it's different, there are scientific explanations, refraction, light, so what we see shouldn't be real. It is necessary to look at problems with scientific explanations and rational analysis.

Both children were wrong.

The rising sun looks bigger than at noon because the sunlight enters the atmosphere in the morning at a greater refraction angle, and what we see is a magnified image of the sun, which looks much larger than the noon sun.

Noon is hotter than morning because the sun is most heated at noon because the sun is directly on the ground at noon, so noon is hotter than in the morning.

In short, the sun is at the same distance from us in the morning and at noon, so its magnitude is the same.

They all have their own reasons, so I think: they're all right.

In "Two Children's Debate", what the two children say is incorrect according to modern scientific interpretation.

The modern scientific explanation for the distance of the sun from people in the morning and noon is that due to the rotation and revolution of the earth, there are indeed some changes in the distance between the sun and people in the morning and noon, but they are so small that they are difficult to detect with the naked eye. Again, the impact of this situation on the temperature is negligible.

Why do the two children have different opinions? That's because they look at things from different angles: one starts from the visual point of view, using the metaphor of "like a car cover" and "like a pan" to vividly write the size of the shape of the sun; The other starts from the sense of touch, using the metaphor of "like exploring the soup" to vividly write about the scorching heat of the sun at noon.

Due to the large irradiation angle at noon, the earth's surface receives more heat energy, so the temperature is high; In the morning, the irradiation angle is small, so the temperature is low. As for the sun, "big in the morning, small at noon", it is completely a visual illusion, because the background is small and dark in the morning, so the sun is bigger, and at noon, there is a vast and bright sky as the background of the sun, and it looks like it is a little smaller.

From a philosophical point of view, we should look at a problem in a comprehensive way, and we should not only look at one point and not leave the rest behind, otherwise we will make subjective and one-sided mistakes like the "two children." Subjectivity refers to observing and dealing with problems, not from objective reality, but from subjective imagination, and not looking at problems from a materialistic point of view. One-sidedness refers to not looking at problems comprehensively, observing and handling problems, only understanding one side of the contradiction and not the other side of the contradiction, seeing only the part and not the whole, and not being able to grasp things comprehensively.

It should be noted that although the understanding of the "two children" is limited by the limitations of the times and is somewhat biased, their spirit of exploration is still worthy of recognition. They are diligent thinkers and imaginative. From their-for-tat arguments, you can also feel the interlocutor's tiger anger and smile.

But after all, their understanding is only superficial, and they can only cling to their own opinions and cannot get the correct answer.