Reading Comprehension

PT18 · S3 · P2 · Q10 Is Science Objective

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A recent generation of historians of science, far from portraying accepted scientific views as objectively accurate reflections of a natural world, explain the acceptance of such views in terms of the ideological biases of certain influential scientists or the institutional and rhetorical power such scientists wield.

Topic

Scientific truth's relationship to objective reality

Framework

Present Debate / Challenge a Position

Main Point

C'mon, fools. Y'all know that some scientific truths are objective facts of the world (like H20 or genetics). Sure, it's complicated and roundabout how we discover these truths (lots of mistakes along the way) and it's influenced in interesting ways by power structures and ideologies, but stop playin' like scientific truths are just subjective opinions.

Summary

P1 - Describes 2 points of view (pushes back against one)

We learn what "historians of science" mindset is -- the accepted scientific views we have aren't because they accurately describe objective reality, they're because certain scientists and organizations are influential enough to get other scientists to accept these views.

"Philosophers of science" have a related mindset -- scientific views aren't what they are because they align with objective reality, they're the result of creative scientists inventing things in their minds, with other scientists trying to falsify them.

In the final sentence, the author uses the negative attitude word "extremism", telling us that the author is against historians of science (and probably not a fan of philosophers of science).

P2 - Author sternly rebukes this crap

The author ain't having it. H20 is not the creative invention of a scientist. It's objective reality.

P3 - Author makes some friendly concessions to the historians / philosophers

Hey, philosophers, I feel you --- science takes such a circuitous path to get to the truth (with lots of mistakes and inaccuracies) that it probably feels like a bunch of random conjectures.

Hey, historians, cool stuff --- you've uncovered some interesting insights about how influence / power structures affect which truths become accepted when.

P4 - But, again, don't go runnin' 'round town speakin' that nonsense again

The author reminds these two groups of how cockamamie it is to suggest that scientific truth isn't tethered to objective reality in some crucial way, and she suggests how historians could continue doing their good stuff without venturing into this dumb stuff.

10.

In the third paragraph of the passage, the author is primarily concerned with

  1. presenting conflicting explanations for a

    Out of Scope: conflicting explanation

    This doesn't look anything like "give some compliments to his opposition". There aren't any conflicting explanations in the 3rd paragraph. The author is endorsing the explanation of the historians that the path from discovery to scientific consensus is a weird, circuitous, and socially-influenced path.

    7% picked this

  2. suggesting a field for possible

    Too Strong: suggesting Too Narrow

    There is one tiny moment that we could almost match up with this answer: "the persuasive processes [by which results get publicized and accepted] are themselves and can be rewardingly studied as such". But this certainly isn't the main thrust of this paragraph, and the author doesn't suggest this possible research. She just acknowledges that some people might do it and she can see why they could find it rewarding.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    qualifying a previously expressed point

    Why this is right

    "To qualify" a statement or view is to make some exceptions, some disclaimers, some qualms. Unqualified excitement: can't wait to go to Disneyland this weekend! Qualified excitement: can't wait for Disney this weekend, though it might rain. Unqualified praise: "Hamilton" was the perfect musical. Qualified praise: other than being 1 hour too long, "Hamilton" was a wonderful musical. Unqualified point of view: What these historians / philosophers have been saying about science is deeply implausible and no serious minded person would take it seriously. Qualified point of view: These historians / philosophers are saying some dumb stuff, although of course I agree with philosophers that ideas in science get amended and changed and of course I agree with the historians that there are social forces that influence the dissemination of scientific discoveries.

    Skill tested: Paragraph Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  4. providing an answer to a

    Out of Scope: question / answer

    This paragraph isn't considering any theoretical question, nor does it provide any answers. It just concedes some points of agreement with the opposition.

    2% picked this

  5. attacking the assumptions that underlie

    Opposite

    The author is not attacking in this paragraph; that's the 2nd and 4th paragraphs. In this paragraph the author is actually validating some of the beliefs of the historians / philosophers.

    11% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free