Questions 89–90 are based on the following reading passage.
While critics contend that the views expounded on in
Against
Method
are tantamount to
scientific anarchism, its author Paul Feyerabend maintains that his views
stem not from a desire
to promote scientific chaos so much as from a recognition that many of
the fundamental tenets
of science—rationality, empiricism, and objectivity, for example—are as
seriously flawed as the
5 “subjective” paths to truth that scientists are quick to repudiate.
Feyerabend goes further by
arguing that many methods that are now condemned in the scientific
community played a critical
role in historical moments of scientific progress. The fact that these
methods helped science
advance in the past indicates that scientists should think twice before
they condemn them.
Much of
Against Method
is a case study of the events surrounding
Galileo’s single-handed
10 rejection of the geocentric cosmological model in favor of the updated
heliocentric model.
Feyerabend goes to lengths to point out that what ultimately allowed
Galileo to succeed in
convincing the Western world that the earth revolved around the sun
(and not the other way
around) was the use of methods most modern scientists would deem
highly suspect. For example,
in attempting to explain why the rotation of the earth did not cause a
rock dropped from a
15 tower to follow a curved, rather than a straight, path, Galileo relied on
several as-yet unproven
hypotheses about the laws of motion, essentially begging the question
for his own position.
Additionally, his published works display a rhetorical style that reads
more like propaganda
than like scholarly work. By showing that these methods were critical to
a crucial scientific
advancement, Feyerabend casts doubt on whether these “unscientific”
practices really deserve the
20 criticism they so often garner.
88. Replacement of the word “repudiate” (line 5) with which of the following
words would result in the LEAST change in meaning in the passage?
(A)
overrule
(B)
embrace
(C)
underscore
(D)
decry
(E)
debate
89. The passage implies that Feyerabend makes use of a case study primarily
in order to
(A)
demonstrate that since a canonical example of scientific progress
itself made use of practices now deemed unscientific, scientists ought
to revise their account of what is and is not acceptable scientific
practice
(B)
show that Galileo, in his attempt to prove that a rock dropped from
a tower followed a straight, not a curved, path, was guilty of many of
the same errors in reasoning that make science controversial today
(C)
underscore the notion that if science wants to keep thinking of
itself as a field that is open to “subjective,” as well as “objective,”
paths to truth, it needs to adopt some of the techniques that were
prevalent in Galileo’s time
(D)
back up the claim that tautological reasoning is acceptable only
when used in the service of supporting hypotheses that have yet to be
proven
(E)
demonstrate that any endeavor in the philosophy of science that
uses examples from history to support its claims is ultimately
doomed to failure
|