PrepTest 94+, Section 3, Question 10
Passage A is adapted from a book review by physicist Freeman Dyson. Passage B is adapted from a response to the review.
Passage A
There are two extreme views concerning the role of science in human understanding. The reductionist view holds that all kinds of knowledge, from physics to ethics, can be reduced to science. The traditional view holds that science is one of many independent sources of knowledge. Most people hold views between these two extremes. Skeptics of paranormal phenomena are generally near the reductionist extreme, while I am near the traditional extreme.
The question of the limits of science is closely connected to the possible existence of paranormal phenomena. Scientific attempts to study extrasensory perception and telepathy have failed. Skeptics conclude from this that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I do not accept this conclusion because I am not a reductionist. Paranormal phenomena may exist but be inaccessible to scientific investigation. This is just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible.
This hypothesis is supported by abundant evidence (stories of ordinary people who apparently possess paranormal abilities) collected by the Society for Psychical Research and similar organizations. This evidence is anecdotal rather than scientific, since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. But the organizations have conscientiously interviewed eyewitnesses right after the events and carefully documented the stories. These stories make it clear that if paranormal events occur, they occur only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion. This would explain why paranormal phenomena are not observable in well-controlled scientific experiments. Strong emotion and stress are incompatible with scientific procedures.
Paranormal phenomena and the scientific method may be complementary. "Complementary" is a technical term in quantum physics, meaning that two descriptions of nature are both valid but cannot be observed simultaneously. The classic example of complementarity is the dual nature of light. Light behaves as a wave in one experiment and as particles in another, but we cannot see both in the same experiment.
Passage A is adapted from a book review by physicist Freeman Dyson. Passage B is adapted from a response to the review.
Passage A
There are two extreme views concerning the role of science in human understanding. The reductionist view holds that all kinds of knowledge, from physics to ethics, can be reduced to science. The traditional view holds that science is one of many independent sources of knowledge. Most people hold views between these two extremes. Skeptics of paranormal phenomena are generally near the reductionist extreme, while I am near the traditional extreme.
The question of the limits of science is closely connected to the possible existence of paranormal phenomena. Scientific attempts to study extrasensory perception and telepathy have failed. Skeptics conclude from this that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I do not accept this conclusion because I am not a reductionist. Paranormal phenomena may exist but be inaccessible to scientific investigation. This is just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible.
This hypothesis is supported by abundant evidence (stories of ordinary people who apparently possess paranormal abilities) collected by the Society for Psychical Research and similar organizations. This evidence is anecdotal rather than scientific, since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. But the organizations have conscientiously interviewed eyewitnesses right after the events and carefully documented the stories. These stories make it clear that if paranormal events occur, they occur only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion. This would explain why paranormal phenomena are not observable in well-controlled scientific experiments. Strong emotion and stress are incompatible with scientific procedures.
Paranormal phenomena and the scientific method may be complementary. "Complementary" is a technical term in quantum physics, meaning that two descriptions of nature are both valid but cannot be observed simultaneously. The classic example of complementarity is the dual nature of light. Light behaves as a wave in one experiment and as particles in another, but we cannot see both in the same experiment.
Passage B
Freeman Dyson makes a ridiculous plea for openness to the paranormal because he is not a reductionist and because anecdotal evidence convinces him that under certain conditions (e.g., stress), some people exhibit paranormal powers, unless they are placed in controlled scientific conditions, in which case the powers mysteriously disappear. A scientist of Dyson's caliber should know that anecdotes do not make a science. The only way to find out if anecdotes represent real phenomena is controlled experimental tests. Paranormal phenomena have repeatedly been subjected to rigorous scientific experiments, and the results are unequivocal: psychic power is a chimera. Dyson recognizes that his belief in the possibility of paranormal phenomena conflicts with his scientific views, but he responds by invoking the principle of complementarity. Sorry, but the principle does not apply to the paranormal. Either people can read other people's minds or they cannot. Science has demonstrated that they cannot. And being a holist instead of a reductionist or reading about weird things that happen to people does not change this scientific fact.
Passage A is adapted from a book review by physicist Freeman Dyson. Passage B is adapted from a response to the review.
Passage A
There are two extreme views concerning the role of science in human understanding. The reductionist view holds that all kinds of knowledge, from physics to ethics, can be reduced to science. The traditional view holds that science is one of many independent sources of knowledge. Most people hold views between these two extremes. Skeptics of paranormal phenomena are generally near the reductionist extreme, while I am near the traditional extreme.
The question of the limits of science is closely connected to the possible existence of paranormal phenomena. Scientific attempts to study extrasensory perception and telepathy have failed. Skeptics conclude from this that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I do not accept this conclusion because I am not a reductionist. Paranormal phenomena may exist but be inaccessible to scientific investigation. This is just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible.
This hypothesis is supported by abundant evidence (stories of ordinary people who apparently possess paranormal abilities) collected by the Society for Psychical Research and similar organizations. This evidence is anecdotal rather than scientific, since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. But the organizations have conscientiously interviewed eyewitnesses right after the events and carefully documented the stories. These stories make it clear that if paranormal events occur, they occur only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion. This would explain why paranormal phenomena are not observable in well-controlled scientific experiments. Strong emotion and stress are incompatible with scientific procedures.
Paranormal phenomena and the scientific method may be complementary. "Complementary" is a technical term in quantum physics, meaning that two descriptions of nature are both valid but cannot be observed simultaneously. The classic example of complementarity is the dual nature of light. Light behaves as a wave in one experiment and as particles in another, but we cannot see both in the same experiment.
Passage B
Freeman Dyson makes a ridiculous plea for openness to the paranormal because he is not a reductionist and because anecdotal evidence convinces him that under certain conditions (e.g., stress), some people exhibit paranormal powers, unless they are placed in controlled scientific conditions, in which case the powers mysteriously disappear. A scientist of Dyson's caliber should know that anecdotes do not make a science. The only way to find out if anecdotes represent real phenomena is controlled experimental tests. Paranormal phenomena have repeatedly been subjected to rigorous scientific experiments, and the results are unequivocal: psychic power is a chimera. Dyson recognizes that his belief in the possibility of paranormal phenomena conflicts with his scientific views, but he responds by invoking the principle of complementarity. Sorry, but the principle does not apply to the paranormal. Either people can read other people's minds or they cannot. Science has demonstrated that they cannot. And being a holist instead of a reductionist or reading about weird things that happen to people does not change this scientific fact.
Passage A is adapted from a book review by physicist Freeman Dyson. Passage B is adapted from a response to the review.
Passage A
There are two extreme views concerning the role of science in human understanding. The reductionist view holds that all kinds of knowledge, from physics to ethics, can be reduced to science. The traditional view holds that science is one of many independent sources of knowledge. Most people hold views between these two extremes. Skeptics of paranormal phenomena are generally near the reductionist extreme, while I am near the traditional extreme.
The question of the limits of science is closely connected to the possible existence of paranormal phenomena. Scientific attempts to study extrasensory perception and telepathy have failed. Skeptics conclude from this that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I do not accept this conclusion because I am not a reductionist. Paranormal phenomena may exist but be inaccessible to scientific investigation. This is just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible.
This hypothesis is supported by abundant evidence (stories of ordinary people who apparently possess paranormal abilities) collected by the Society for Psychical Research and similar organizations. This evidence is anecdotal rather than scientific, since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. But the organizations have conscientiously interviewed eyewitnesses right after the events and carefully documented the stories. These stories make it clear that if paranormal events occur, they occur only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion. This would explain why paranormal phenomena are not observable in well-controlled scientific experiments. Strong emotion and stress are incompatible with scientific procedures.
Paranormal phenomena and the scientific method may be complementary. "Complementary" is a technical term in quantum physics, meaning that two descriptions of nature are both valid but cannot be observed simultaneously. The classic example of complementarity is the dual nature of light. Light behaves as a wave in one experiment and as particles in another, but we cannot see both in the same experiment.
The primary purposes of the two passages are related in which one of the following ways?
Passage A argues for a general view, and passage B presents a specific counterexample to that view.
Passage A proposes a wide-ranging new theory, and passage B takes issue with some details of that theory.
Passage A argues that something is possible, and passage B tries to refute that argument.
Passage A questions a mainstream view, and passage B defends that view against the charges made in passage A.
Passage A argues that a theory is self-contradictory, and passage B argues that the contradiction is only apparent.
Explanations
The question asks us how the primary purposes of these passages relate to one another. We need accurate, big-picture descriptions of each passage that describe their relationship.
I want something like, "Passage A says the paranormal is possible while passage B refutes passage A's argument."
Let's find it.
Nah, I wouldn't even say this correctly characterizes either passage's primary purpose. Next!
No. Passage A isn't getting us into some new theory about the paranormal, only arguing that it's possible. And passage B takes issue with pretty much the whole thing, not just part of it.
Perfect. Passage A argues for a possibility. Passage B pushes back against that possibility. This is the answer
Nope. Passage A doesn't question a mainstream view. I literally stopped reading at that first period.
No way. Similar to E, I didn't get further than the answer choice's description of passage A's primary purpose.
0 Comments