PrepTest 94+, Section 3, Question 9
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.
Which one of the following principles underlies the argument in passage B but would be rejected by the author of passage A?
There are principles of quantum physics that cannot be applied to studies of human behavior.
Either all knowledge can be reduced to science, or science is in no way privileged over other sources of knowledge.
Scientific facts are valid independently of any views that people may have about the role of science in human understanding.
If the existence of an alleged phenomenon cannot be demonstrated in controlled experimental tests, then the phenomenon does not exist.
The support that anecdotes provide for a scientific theory can never be as strong as the support provided by controlled experimental tests.
Explanations
The question asks us to find a principle underlying passage B that would be rejected by author A.
We can think about this sort of like a disagree question on LR. In other words, what's the main point at issue between these authors?
My prediction is something like, "If you can't reproduce a phenomenon in a controlled experiment, we can't say the phenomenon exists." Author A would dispute this idea and point to anecdotal evidence. Author B would strongly agree, and this is the core of author B's argument against author A.
Let's go find it.
No, this isn't even the underlying principle to passage B. Can't pick it.
No way. What's this "all knowledge" business? That goes way too hard. The underlying principle in passage B is that we need to confirm what we know through experiments, not anecdotes.
Tricky, but no. This is a trap. We could argue author A might dispute this and author B would agree with it, but it's not the underlying principle of author B's argument.
Yes. This is the answer. If we get reports of a phenomenon, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled environment, it doesn't exist. That's author B's whole point. And it's the point author A would reject.
No. Another trap. Author B would probably believe this, and author A would probably reject it, but this isn't the underlying principle in author B's argument.
0 Comments