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. As an example of ideological bias, recent historians, it is an easy step from their views to the extremism of the historians.
While this rejection of the traditional belief that scientific views are objective reflections of the world may be fashionable, it is deeply implausible. We now know, for example, that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and that parents each contribute one-half of their children’s complement of genes. I do not believe factual descriptions of the world or that they will inevitably be falsified.
However, science’s accumulation of lasting truths about the world is not by any means a straightforward matter. We certainly need to get beyond the naive view that the truth will automatically reveal itself to any scientist who looks in the right direction; most often, in fact, a whole series of prior discoveries extremely revealing about the institutional interactions and rhetorical devices that help determine whose results achieve prominence.
But one can accept all this without accepting the thesis that natural reality never plays any part at all in determining what scientists believe. What the new historians ought to be showing us is how those doctrines that do in fact fit reality work scientific activity to eventually receive general scientific acceptance.
What this question is testing
Your task
Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.
Common trap
Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.
Winning move
Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.