PrepTest 94+, Section 3, Question 7
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.
It can be inferred that the author of passage A would be most likely to consider which one of the following assertions made in passage B to misrepresent his views?
The author of passage A is convinced that under certain conditions some people exhibit paranormal powers.
The author of passage A believes that there is anecdotal evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena.
The author of passage A denies that he holds the reductionist view of the role of science in human understanding.
The author of passage A tries to resolve the conflict between science and the paranormal by invoking the principle of complementarity.
The author of passage A believes that paranormal powers are not observable in scientific experiments.
Explanations
The question asks us which answer choice describes something said by passage B about passage A that author A would call a mischaracterization.
The first thing that comes to mind is the author B's scathing criticism in their opening sentence: "[Author A] makes a ridiculous plea for openness to the paranormal because he is not a reductionist and because anecdotal evidence convinces him...some people exhibit paranormal powers."
Half of that quote—the first half—is accurate. Author A tells us explicitly that he's not a reductionist. The other half of that quote, not as much. Author A never claims to be convinced of paranormal phenomena, even from anecdotes. Author A simply argues that he's open minded to it and other scientists probably should be too.
That's probably going to be the answer. Let's see.
Perfect. Yes, Author B says this about author A, but author A would probably push back with "I'm not convinced. I just think it's worth investigating further." This is the answer.
Nope. Author B says this about author A, but author A would concede that this is a fair description.
Nope. Just like answer choice B, author A would concede that this is accurate about him.
No. Again, author A would say this accurately describes him.
No. Just like answer choices B, C, and D, author A would concede this point.
0 Comments