Reading Comprehension

PT18 · S3 · P2 · Q9 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.

9.

According to the passage, Kepler’s ideas provide an example of scientific ideas that were

  1. Correct

    corrected by subsequent inquiries

    Why this is right

    Kepler's ideas were scientific ideas that were corrected by Newton. How do we know that Newton was subsequent (after) Kepler? The entity doing "the correcting" necessarily has to be second. You can't correct what hasn't happened yet. Why are we calling Newton's ideas inquiries? The expression "scientific inquiry" is synonymous with scientific investigations, theory, research.

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

    88% picked this

  2. dependent on a series of

    Unrelated to Goal

    Even though the passage says that "most often, a whole series of prior discoveries" is needed to get to the scientific truth, Kepler was not mentioned as an example of this. Kepler is explicitly mentioned as an example of a scientific idea that got corrected by a new scientific idea.

    5% picked this

  3. originally thought to be imprecise

    Contradicted: confirmed

    Kepler is mentioned as an example of a scientific idea that got corrected by a new scientific idea (Newton's). If Kepler's ideas were corrected, then that is the opposite of being confirmed.

    3% picked this

  4. established primarily by the force

    Unrelated to Goal

    This answer is using language from the first paragraph (the historians of science view). We're just being asked what Kepler was an example of --- the answer is found in that very same sentence. Kepler is explicitly mentioned as an example of a scientific idea that got corrected by a new scientific idea.

    1% picked this

  5. specifically taken up for the

    Unrelated to Goal

    I'm sure falsification is mentioned in the passage, but not in the sentence about Kepler. :) Kepler is explicitly mentioned as an example of a scientific idea that got corrected by a new scientific idea.

    3% 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