Reading Comprehension

PT18 · S3 · P2 · Q12 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.

12.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely agree with which one of the following statements about the relationship between the views of “certain philosophers of science” (highlighted passage) and those of the recent historians?

  1. These two views are difficult

    Too Strong: difficult to differentiate

    This seems contradicted by the final sentence of the first paragraph, in which we're saying the philosophers of science wouldn't want to associate with the historians, but it's an easy step from their view to the extremism of the historians. So the author is definitely able to differentiate the views -- one is more extreme than the other.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    These two views share some

    Why this is right

    This is a much more moderate version of (A). We know the views have some relationships because, "These historians seem to find allies in certain philosophers" indicates that there is some overlap in their thinking. And then the final sentence of the first paragraph says that "it's an easy step from [the philosophers''] views to the extremism of the historians." This also indicates that the views are related; one is a more extreme version of the other.

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

    80% picked this

  3. The views of the philosophers

    Unsupported: the source

    The author is establishing that these two views are somewhat similar and related, but she never says anything that justifies us thinking that the philosophers' views were the actual inspiration/source for the historians'.

    8% picked this

  4. Both views emphasize the rhetorical

    Not the Philosophers' View

    Only the historians were emphasizing the rhetorical power of certain "influential scientists". The philosophers don't talk about anything like that. They're just saying, "given that science is always vulnerable to updating / correction, let's just admit that scientific views aren't descriptions of reality as much as just free inventions of creative minds".

    9% picked this

  5. The historians explicitly acknowledge that

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: explicitly acknowledge Same as (C) There is nothing in the first paragraph that looks like the historians explicitly saying, "We got our views from these philosophers". Additionally, if they did say that, then choice (C) would also be correct.

    2% 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