#26- People ought to take into account a discipline’s

[sw51]

I'm still struggling with this one. I also chose (C) because, I reasoned, Chemistry is an example of a science that clearly has lots of value and has fishy roots, so it's a counter example (I.e., contradicts the principle). I suppose this brings in outside knowledge (chemistry is valuable science) but that seems obvious to the average person.

My problem with (B) is that the argument never says "you should ignore" it just says "take into account." I reasoned that there's nothing wrong with someone assessing chemistry as follows: Chemistry has value but a bit lesss than physics because physics has pure roots and chemistry doesn't." In other words, taking something into account is a pretty low standard and still permits consideration of how "current theories and practices differ...".

Am I missing something? Thanks

Hi Elana,

Thanks for the question! You'll probably see some delays in replies right now, since the posting level is way higher than normal

Yes, answer choice (E) is an uncertain use of the term—good job!

Answer choice (C) isn't a formal evidence error, and actually does not describe an error at all, because it's generally okay to use an example to contradict a principle. In the argument the example actually is supposed to support the principle, not contradict it, meaning this answer misses the mark factually. I think you might have been wondering if this fits the "some evidence against is taken to prove a position false" flaw, and I see why you wondering about that connection, but I don't think the wording is quite close enough to put it in that group.

Thanks!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi sw51,

Thanks for your question!

With regards to answer choice (C) -- I actually see this argument as using the example of chemistry as a supporting example (not a counter-example). The argument is basically that the blemished origins of a scientific discipline should be used in assessing the value of the discipline. The author then gives an example of a blemished origin of a scientific discipline (alchemists giving rise to chemistry) and states that "it must be considered that many of [chemistry's] landmark results" came from alchemists.

The author doesn't spell out the third step, but since he says that chemistry has its origins in a nonsense field like alchemy, the scientific value of chemistry should be assessed by taking these sketchy origins into account. It's a weak argument, but that's what makes it so easy to attack.

I think you do a good job of reasoning through how the author's argument works. You paraphrased the author's argument well when you said, "Chemistry has value but a bit less than physics because physics has pure roots and chemistry doesn't." That argument still doesn't make much sense. Why should the origins of a scientific field matter if the modern practices of the field are scientifically sound? It really shouldn't matter at all, so long as modern scientists aren't still consulting sun signs to find out how to turn lead into gold.

I hope that helps clarify things. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[Henry Z]

Hi, just wanna confirm my way of thinking.

We have a conclusion and an example here. The author's assumption is that chemistry and alchemy are of the same discipline. (B) is correct because it attacks that assumption. Is that right?

[Adam Tyson]

That's a good, succinct way of putting it, Henry! The author seems to think that the early alchemists got those landmark results though "superstitions and appeals to magic," but what if they did not? Maybe their good work only happened when they turned away from superstition and started doing legitimate science, no longer behaving like alchemists?