PrepTest 82, Section 2, Question 20
Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to first ask themselves if their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by mere curiosity. An investigation into a private matter such as health history is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to first ask themselves if their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by mere curiosity. An investigation into a private matter such as health history is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Varela: You forget that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. Many great scientific discoveries were motivated by curiosity alone.
Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to first ask themselves if their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by mere curiosity. An investigation into a private matter such as health history is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Varela: You forget that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. Many great scientific discoveries were motivated by curiosity alone.
Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to first ask themselves if their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by mere curiosity. An investigation into a private matter such as health history is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Varela responds to Pulford's argument by
contending that Pulford's argument rests on an untenable distinction
disputing the validity of a principle that Pulford explicitly states
offering a counterexample to a generalization in Pulford's conclusion
attempting to draw a distinction between two views that Pulford treats as a single view
maintaining that Pulford's argument is based on inconsistent premises
0 Comments