#7 - Concept Reference, Must be True, Author's Perspective

[Katya W]

Hi, I struggled to choose between A and C. They were both things that were presented as misconceptions humanists had about science. Can someone please help me? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

In this question, we are looking for something that humanists think about scientists. That sends us to the second paragraph to look for our answer, and there we find no discussion of emotions. It's in the third paragraph, where we see the mistaken beliefs of scientists about humanists, that emotions are brought up. That's one reason for rejecting answer A - we have no evidence for what humanists mistakenly believe scientists think about emotions.

Another reason to reject it is that the humanists think scientists claim nothing is truly inexplicable, that it can all be explained away or somehow measured.

[KG!]

Would you mind explaining why the answer choice is not D?

[Beth Hayden]

Hi KG,

The humanists believe that there is an irreducible spiritual element that science can't explain (lines 19-24), but answer choice D misconstrues that point. It's the other way around, the assertion is that scientists don't recognize the spiritual element of art.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[misheleleee]

I incorrectly chose A because looked at the last sentence of paragraph 2 equated the humanist's belief that some human's are inexplicable by science to science encourages the idea that emotions are inexplicable.

For B, is support in the passage found in the following line: "There are many who feel that the scientist is interested in nothing more than "bodies of motion," in the strictly mathematical, physical, and chemical laws that govern the material world"?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Misheleleee!

Let's take a look at the last part of Paragraph 2:

"For example, it is claimed that science either ignores or explains away the most essential human values. Those who believe this also assert that there are aspects of the human mind, manifest especially in the domains of morality, religion, and the arts, that contain an irreducible spiritual element and for that reason can never be adequately explained by science."

This doesn't actually state that humanists believe scientists think that emotions are inexplicable. Rather, it tells us that some humanists think that scientists either "explain away or ignore" essential human values like emotion. Neither of those indicate the belief that scientists claim emotions are inexplicable, rather, it indicates that scientists do, in fact, try to explain things like emotion, just from a more clinical perspective.

Answer Choice B states: " Science arises out of practical needs but serves other needs as well."

This would actually be in line with the author's overarching point that although science may arise from more "practical" notions, it contributes to our understanding of ourselves in the world, much in the way that the humanities do. Lines 10-14, which you referenced, don't lend support to this Answer Choice. Sure, humanists may believe that science focuses on the mathematical, physical and chemical laws that govern our world. However, nothing about this section indicates that humanists believe that science "serves other needs" in spite of its more practical origins.

Lines 10-14 do, however, provide support for Answer Choice C, which states: "Science depends exclusively on measurable data to support its claims."

Answer Choice C is further supported by Lines 14-17: "This is the caricature of science drawn by representatives of the humanities who are ignorant of the nature of modern science and also of the scientific outlook in philosophy." This would indicate that the measurable "bodies in motion" are not the sole basis of scientific fact and discovery.

I hope this helps!