使用：使人或器物等为某种目的服务
利用：①使事物或人发挥效能：废物～ㄧ～当地的有利条件发展畜牧业。
②用手段使人或事物为自己服务：互相～。
(1)
[use;utilize;make use of]∶利于发挥效用
充分利用
利用废料
(2)
[take advantage of;exploit]∶设法为己所用
利用矛盾
利用，电子废物污染环境防治管理术语，是指从电子废物中提取物质作为原材料或者燃料的活动，不包括对产品或者设备的维修、翻新和再制造。

摘自百度百科

下面是我的理解

利用不但可以做谓语，还可以与某些词做短语。例如废物利用。
都有用的意思，不过使用环境不同。使用和用几乎是没有差别的。利用除了有用的意思，还有利。

这句英文什么意思？

此题是一个选择问句。
be culture smart or be science intelligent?是要文化所带来的聪慧，还是要科学带来的智能？culture用来强调smart的方式。be smart, be culture smart。同理 ，science是intelligent的方式，be intelligent, be science intelligent.

例文4篇，仅供参考---

1.
Good afternoon，ladies and gentlemen，distinguished guests and honorable judges:
I’m xxxfrom E810. It is my great honour to share my viewpoints on Culture Smart or Science Intelligent with you.
This question resemble Mother or Fanther, who do you like better. Most of us will chose mother, when we were young, we always song Mum Is The Best In The World told us.
Here I wnna make an analogy, Let’s likened Culture Smart to Mother, likened Science Intelligent to father.
Formerly, as is the nature’s call:we like mother for almost five thousand years, she gives us the most long-standing history of civilization in the world. It is no exaggeration to say that the culture of our country is the most brilliant in the world. as it turned out, we have a great distance between our father Science Intelligent.Therefore he give us only the four great inventions of ancient China, which included powder ,compass, papaermaking, and printing,moreover, we didn’t make full use of it,
On the contrary, our brother western countries are fond of father Science Intelligent obviously, Because father gives them many technology which helped them become developed country.
Meanwhile we are always proud of our culture,For example, our abundant cultural deposits which made our civilization like a shining star in the darkness. When people mentioned about the human civilization, we have to refer to our China, because Chinese culture is the most historical and brilliant culture in the world.
But, by the way our technology has get far behind the western countries.
Unfortunately,one day, They attacked us with our own invention powder .our father sent his sons western countries to give us a good beating, because if we fall behind,we will be punished by those who are one-up. we do nothing about it, because what we have is just culture,rather than defence of hign technology.
Evidently ,god is fair, God closed a door and will open another window for you.
Here I wanna share a story that my history teacher told me. Once upon a time, There was a couple, they had two children ,the elder brother liked reading, he could acquire much knowledge from books in his study ,the younger brother was a behaviourist, no matter what kinds of problems in front of him, he will take action to solve it, all he believed was that the practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. So he made a plan to travel around the world, Decades years past, they both became adults ,the elder brother had become a teacher at his hometown (at the local) ,He tought Confucian culture for many children. He imparted knowledge and culture to people, However, his younger brother came back home with many manual skills, for example he learned how to make gizmos, such as windmill which helped the local farmers in Irrigating crop fields, and the round wheels which made transportation more convenient and so on.
All right, Let's keep on track. Culture Smart or Science Intelligent like these two brothers, who is better? The answer is both are good, They are as close as two siblings, two brother can never be divided.




2.
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen: thanks for raising your attention. It’s a pleasure for me to share my point of view of the topic with you all. Well ,the topic I’m going to deal with is “culture smart or science intelligent”.


When the topic first caught my eye , the great artist Leonardo Da Vinci occurred to me . As is known to all, Leonardo has a gift for the paining, so there are many famous painting works drawn by him which are really impressive ,such as the well-known portrait Mona Lisa, however , he is not only an artist ,but a great inventor and a scientist. Everything he saw , heard , or experienced was an opportunity to learn something new, in another word , everything fascinated him. Therefore , according to his notebook , we found many inventions that were full of imagination and some theories about optics , which did help Leonardo’s paintings to be more vivid. So , I believe that the culture and science can be compatible, rather than an alternative.


As far as I’m concerned , the intelligent one in science may be a clever one , while the smart one in culture might be wisdom. Someone once said , the elimination of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization, this proves that we need the guidance of culture smart . On one hand , the culture provides ideological power to science and technology , on the other hand , culture prevents the tendency of extremity of science and technology . Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that the science and technology take the supreme lead of the productivity. Without the advanced science and technology , no achievements or progress would be made .What the distinctive feature of science is its commitment to an open-ended exploration. Then , my conclusion is the science and culture are not antagonistic, instead , they’re the complement.


Life is a multiple-choice exam , so I believe the answer is not an only certain thing. I’d like to compare the science to the composition of a painting , while the culture to the color of the painting ; the science is just like the heart , and the culture is our mind. Culture motivate science , and science develop culture.



3.How often have we not been told that the study of physical science is incompetent to confer culture; that it touches none of the higher problems of life; and, what is worse, that the continual devotion to scientific studies tends to generate a narrow and bigoted belief in the applicability of scientific methods to the search after truth of all kinds ? How frequently one has reason to observe that no reply to a troublesome argument tells so well as calling its author a mere scientific specialist. And, as I am afraid it is not permissible to speak of this form of opposition to scientific education in the past tense; may we not expect to be told that this, not only omission, but prohibition, of mere literary instruction and education is a patent example of scientific narrow-mindedness?

I think that we must all assent to the first proposition. For culture certainly means something quite different from learning or technical skill. It implies the possession of an ideal, and the habit of critically estimating the value of things by comparison with a theoretic standard. Perfect culture should supply a complete theory of life, based upon a clear knowledge alike of its possibilities and of its limitations.


What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture
What Science Offers the Humanities examines some of the deep problems facing current approaches to the study of culture. It focuses especially on the excesses of postmodernism, but also acknowledges serious problems with postmodernism's harshest critics. In short, in order for the humanities to progress, its scholars need to take seriously contributions from the natural sciences-and particular research on human cognition-which demonstrate that any separation of the mind and the body is entirely untenable. The author provides suggestions for how humanists might begin to utilize these scientific discoveries without conceding that science has the last word on morality, religion, art, and literature. Calling into question such deeply entrenched dogmas as the blank slate theory of nature, strong social constructivism, and the ideal of disembodied reason, What Science Offers the Humanities replaces the human-sciences divide with a more integrated approach to the study of culture.

Technology and Culture have both influenced each other equally. Technology has been directed as an improvement in our lives, but on the other hand, Culture has been present in every invention, noticeable or not, and advancement in our evolving society. Technology is becoming focused upon more and more everyday, but culture is the determining factor that decides if there is a necessity for an improvement. There are endless views and perspectives that this situation can be viewed from, but without a doubt, Technology and Culture shape one another. Culture has been a part of our society, and way of life, forever. It is almost impossible to come up with an idea that isnt influenced by culture. Picture our lives without cars, television, and computers. This would be an example of everyday life without technology. People could function happily in that type of atmosphere, but technology has changed our lives forever. Technology has changed our pace and perspective on education. Students would have to go to libraries and spend a lot of time researching to find out information for class assignments, but with technology students can find almost anything on there home computers and by accessing the internet. Technology has definitely become the authoritative factor in our lives, but culture has shaped technology. Technology is made and used in such a variety of ways because many people who use the technology of today come from all walks of life and have different necessities, so to compensate for that technology must adapt to all different cultures.




4.
Culture Smart or Science Intelligent

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

It is my great honour to share my viewpoints on Culture Smart and Science Intelligence with all of dear audience present.

As is known to us all that our contemporary lives and the society in current are undergoing profound changes with the promoting development of science and technology. However, have we realized the estrange and departure of our culture against the background on which the positive achievements have been brought by science and technology. Which course should we take in culture smart and science intelligence as the issue on social development is concerned in the process of ultrahigh-speeded urbanization? My viewpoint is clear an firm, that is the cultue smart.

It is generally accepted by the broad mass that science and technology take the supreme lead of the productivity. No achievements nurtured by civilization in our contemporary society can be created without the development of science and technology and the society will fall to its stagnant pace. Thanks to the progress made by the advancing science and technology, especially the development of intelligentization, schemed out by robots, unmanned driving and digital platform, offers great convienience to both the production and daily lives of human beings and promotes the social progress.


But under no circumstances should we admit that a series of problems on environment and social ethics concerning environment pollution, ozonocavity, greenhouse effect, colon human and nuclear deterrent occurred against the prosperity carried out by science and technology. So how can we spare no effort on keeping such problems from deterioration in all possibilities? What development pattern will be on science and technology in future?

The answer is that we need the guidance of culture smart. When we talk about culture, we may regard it as the tradition and history, but how can the intelligentization of science and technology be guided by the culture smart? Here I want to put it that culture is not like a pond filled with stagnant water, but a dynamic system. We can never draw a conclusion of culture as “the deposit of history”, what’s more, we should make it clear that the culture defines our present and future. Modernization, of any kind or shape, shares no alteration on its starting point but the commencement of culture. If not the modernization will inevitably fall to the situation where the water has no source and the tree has no root. The development of science and technology takes no exception on this.

The ultrahigh speed of the development of contemporary science and technology contributes no efforts on science and technology itself, but the ideological motivation and the promotion spurred by the ideological power offerd by culture smart. Karl Poopper once said, the elimination of culture leads to the disappearance of civilization. It is obviously that if the promotion effect had been omitted, the science and technology could have been far-reached.

The culture smart guides our society into stability and prosperity. We need culture smart because on the one hand, culture provides ideological power to science and technology, on the other hand, culture prevents the tendency of extremity of science and technology. The current problem concerning colon human, outerspace utilitization and nuclear weapon byproducted by contemporary science and technology call for the development in a just course on the sphere of culture. The wisdom-vacanted culture and the extremized science and technology will throw a great threat to the survival of us human beings and the world peace.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the culture wisdom is our “root” and we need the root that supports our belief, the negation of the root casts its reflections on history and the existence of us human beings. So only in the manner of settling on the basis of culture smart can we make it helpful to the development of science and technology in a just course, the continual progress of human society, the prosperity and peace.

Thank you!

Both science itself, and the human culture of which it is a part, would benefit from a story of science that encourages wider engagement with and participation in the processes of scientific exploration. Such a story, based on a close analysis of scientific method, is presented here. It is the story of science as story telling and story revising. The story of science as story suggests that science can and should serve three distinctive functions for humanity: providing stories that may increase (but never guarantee) human well-being, serving as a supportive nexus for human exploration and story telling in general, and exemplifying a commitment to skepticism and a resulting open-ended and continuing exploration of what might yet be. Some practical considerations that would further the development and acceptance of such a story of science as a widely shared nexus of human activity are described.


Culture Smart or Science Intelligent?

Science and Culture

What is science? How does it relate to our lives as individual human beings? to other aspects of our social and cultural communities?

What is our future? ...our own role in and responsibility for the future? Can empirical inquiry help with such questions?

How does empirical understanding relate to other kinds of understanding? Are they necessarily antagonistic or can they usefully complement one another?


Division and specialization of function – science school and culture school

The intention is to retain traditional methods of teaching science, but to adjust the quantity of this kind of rigorous education to the abilities and attitudes of the student. This implies that it would be more educationally efficient for weaker students to spend just one or two hours per day learning science in a rigorous and ‘didactic’ classroom situation than to spend much longer in less-structured forms of classroom experience. At least, it is known from extensive experience (with elite students) that traditional methods are an effective and efficient way of teaching science.
A general understanding of efficiency in systems suggests some principles which would be likely to lead to greater science education efficiency. Perhaps the most frequent way in which human (and biological) systems are able to increase their efficiency is the principle of ‘division of labour’ which was first articulated by the economist Adam Smith. Division of labour increases the complexity of organization by specialization of function, and coordination of these specialized functions. Smith’s famous example involved a pin factory, in which the procedure for making a pin was broken down into numerous simpler, more-specialized sequential steps; and these steps were coordinated by managers leading to vastly increased efficiency (as measured by the numbers of pins produced per person per day) [8].

When the modern school is examined in this light, it can be seen that there is already considerable specialization. For example teachers are specialized according to age of children taught, subject matter expertise, and administrative responsibilities. Schools are also internally specialized by age stratification and academic aptitude of students (also, sometimes, by the sex or socio-economic class of students). However, logically there is a further possible division of function. My proposal is that the efficiency of science teaching might be increased by introducing a functional division between science education, and what might be termed cultural education - which would include arts, sports, ethics, social aspects of schooling and any other educational objectives such as good citizenship.

Schools might have an internal functional division into ‘science school’ and ‘culture school’. This functional division should be reflected in terms of physical plant, separate administrative structures, and the recruitment of differently-specialized teaching personnel. These divisions would be characterized by the nature of their system-characteristic internal evaluations. For instance, the evaluations within science school would be relatively narrow and more examination-focused than in the culture school. In science school the performance of both teaching staff and students would be judged mainly (although not exclusively) by scientific criteria, including formal examination results. Science school would be distinguished by its academic ethos and scholarly expectations. The focus of science school would be to inculcate the aptitude for abstract systematic cognition.

For example, an existing school might become physically divided between science and cultural parts, each on distinct parts of the campus. Each student would spend some significant part of each day (depending on their aptitude and motivation) in the ‘science school’, experiencing a traditional-style, didactic, disciplined and rigorous academic education which is (so far as we can tell) the best way to teach real science at the basic level. Science school teaching would need to be stratified according to ability and aptitude, since this is more efficient than teaching widely-mixed classes. Different strata of students could be taught from a broadly common curriculum (enabling educational credit accumulation and transfer); but different abilities of student would cover different amounts of subject matter, different specific subjects, and progress at different speeds.

The remainder of the students’ time at school would be spent in the cultural division, which would focus on broader aspects, and aiming to generate a more rounded and social individual. Examinations in culture school would be much more based on participation, sustained effort, attitudes, attendance etc. Inevitably, since it has many aims and a wider focus, culture school would apply many evaluations to its teachers and students. Inevitably, too, these evaluations would be less clear-cut and more contested.