#18- Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth

[Adam Tyson]

It's not about a subset of scientists, 180bound, but about all scientists individually. They are all human, and thus self-interested. That isn't just about some scientists, but about each of them. The author argues that what is true of scientists (who are individuals) must be true of their group (the scientific community).

[candace]

Hi, would you be able to go over again the difference between choices A and B? I chose A because I thought "each and every scientist" encompasses the scientific community as a whole. I am trying to understand answer choice B - does "most people" mean "individual scientists" because most does not mean all, but more than 1/2? Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi candace!

Happy to explain those answer choices. First, we're asked to identify a flaw in this argumentation. On my first read, I began to wonder about it involving "ad hominem" flaws in reasoning, since the stimulus effectively claims that certain scientists are just after personal ambitions and then concludes from this that the scientific community as a whole is also just after ambitions.

Answer choice (A) states that the flaw is that the stimulus "improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic [which one?] from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic." The question in brackets is an important step in evaluating answer choices such as this one; if there's a generic, general term like "certain characteristic" used, it's worth looking back to the stimulus to be able to point to what is being referred to by that generic descriptor. The conclusion of this stimulus is "Hence, the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth." Given the italicized word, this answer choice ultimately doesn't accurately describe a flaw in this stimulus since its conclusion isn't an absolute one about all scientists.

By contrast, answer choice (B) states that it "improperly draws an inference [what inference?] about the scientific community as a whole from a premise about individual scientists." Here, the inference is indeed about something that can be described as a characteristic--the characteristic of being ambitious (at the cost of caring about the truth in scientific inquiry). My initial read of this question therefore wasn't directly on point in necessarily finding the specific flaw mentioned in the right answer choice, but that process of pre-phrasing is a very important one; pausing for a few seconds after reading the stimulus and question stem gives you a chance to wrestle with what you've just read, engage with it, and make a reasoned prediction of an answer choice. Instead, this answer choice is making the reasoning flaw of assuming what is true about some members of a group is true of all the members. That is, it makes a conclusion about the scientific community based on information about "most" individual scientists.

[Roadto170]

This question is confusing because of the words "individual" and "most". The passage says that "activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement"... thus the scientific community's activies are directed towards the same thing.

Is this not what A says? Although I understand that "each and every" does not equal community (for even if a community believes X does not mean that each and every member believes X) A more accurately describes that premise (most scientists vs. individual). The stimulus never says anything about an individual scientist.

Confused but starting to grasp the question better. Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Although I understand that "each and every" does not equal community (for even if a community believes X does not mean that each and every member believes X)

This is the problem with answer A, Roadto170: the passage does not come to a conclusion about every scientist. The conclusion is about the community - the group - to which they belong. Answer A is incorrectly describing the conclusion, but a good Flaw in the Reasoning answer must be an accurate description of what happened.

The statement about individual scientists is not about any specific individuals, but about scientists as individuals. Individually, they are self-interested. More importantly, the correct answer accurately reflects the conclusion about he scientific community.

[Roadto170]

Thanks Adam! So, just so I understand completely, if even a small part of a Flaw in the Reasoning answer choice is incorrect, then that answer cannot be selected?

Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

That's right! We like to say that an answer that is part wrong is all wrong. A correct Flaw answer must be accurate, so if it isn't, it's wrong.