For many centuries it was

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: likely to believe2% picked this

   Scientists who use Euclidean geometry are likely to believe that progress in mathematical theory results in

   We actually know nothing about what "scientists who use Euclidean geometry" believe. We know for many centuries in the past people had a belief about Euclidean geometry, but this is about current scientists.

   2%
2. B

   Correct69% picked this

   Scientists generally do not now believe that classical Euclidean geometry is uniquely capable of giving a correct mathematical

   Why this is right

   This safely reconciles both sides of the pivot. Given that the representation of the universe that is most widely accepted by scientists as accurate is non-Euclidean, it would be really weird if most scientists still believed that "only Euclidean representations can correctly represent the universe."

   Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   69%
3. C

   Unknown Comparison: more complete15% picked this

   Non-Euclidean geometry is a more complete way of representing the universe than

   We know that non-Euclidean is "more useful in developing certain areas of theory" and that the most widely accepted representation of the universe is non-Euclidean. But we don't have any language that justifies calling it a more complete way of representing the universe. Is "accuracy" the same as "completeness"? Picture two different biographies of the Abraham Lincoln. One of them might be more complete (i.e. cover more parts of his life) but still be less accurate (i.e. contains more factual inaccuracies).

   15%
4. D

   Too Strong: cannot2% picked this

   An accurate scientific theory cannot be developed without the discovery of a uniquely correct way of

   This is waaaaay too strong. Never in the history of scientific theories is it possible to develop an accurate scientific theory, without first discovering a uniquely correct way of mathematically representing the universe? So if an ornithologist wants to develop an accurate scientific theory about the mating behavior of the bluebird, she has to first discover a uniquely correct way of mathematically representing the universe? That's crazy talk.

   2%
5. E

   Unknown Comparison: more important11% picked this

   The usefulness of a mathematical theory is now considered by scientists to be more important

   We're told that some scientists find these new non-Euclidean representations to be more useful and more accurate (i.e. correct) than Euclidean representations. We never make any head-to-head comparison about whether usefulness is more/less important than correctness.

   11%