Reading Comprehension

PT18 · S3 · P2 · Q13 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.

13.

Which one of the following best characterizes the author’s assessment of the opinions of the new historians of science, as these opinions are presented in the passage?

They lack any credibility.
Too Strong: they have no credibility
That's a little too sweeping. The author would certainly say "the opinion that H2O isn't an objective fact about the natural world" has no credibility. But in the 3rd paragraph, the author acknowledges that other points the historians have brought to light, such as the circuitous and often accidental path taken for a discovery to come to light and become accepted, are "extremely revealing and about institutional interactions and rhetorical devices" (last sentence of 3rd paragraph). So the author would probably say the historians' opinions have some credibility, but that they go too far with thinking that accepted scientific truths reduce to subjective ideas that are given their legitimacy by institutional influence.
9% picked this
They themselves can be rewardingly
Out of Scope: studying the opinions
Haha, this is a pretty amusing answer. Our author never said it would be fascinating to study these historians' opinions themselves. This answer is just ripping language from the passage "rewardingly studied" and applying it to the wrong thing The author think it's rewarding to look into the sort of social phenomena that historians brought to the surface (how institutional leverage shapes which discoveries become accepted, when), not to study the historians' beliefs themselves as social phenomena.
17% picked this
They are least convincing when
Opposite
The author finds these historians most convincing when they're talking about the institutional interactions of scientific groups (end of 3rd paragraph -- much of the new work in history of science has been extremely revealing).
6% picked this
Correct
Although they are gross overstatements,
Why this is right
This balances the good with the bad --- overwhelmingly bad, which is why the author is writing this passage in the first place. "Historians, you sound insane when you suggest that all scientific truths are just agreed-upon opinions indicative more of institutional bias." - deeply implausible - extremism - no serious-minded or informed person would believe this But the author does acknowledge that along the way to their extremism, the discussions the historians have been having are "extremely revealing" (end of P3).
Skill tested: Author's Attitude · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
Although they are now popular,
Too Strong: likely to be refuted
We do hear that they are currently fashionable, and calling something fashionable does insinuate that it's not here to stay. But we don't have any support for the idea of likely to be refuted soon, which is much stronger. Furthermore, this wouldn't best characterize the author's assessment. This might be one true thing the author would believe about the opinions (they are fashionable, so probably not here to stay). But if we're trying to "best characterize" the author's assessment, then this answer should have way more to do with the Main Point, which is that saying scientific truths aren't objective is deeply implausible, extreme, and no serious minded person will agree with this.
5% 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