#22 - The true scientific significance of a group of unusual

[caseyh123]

I really do not understand the wording of A. I understand that this is a "source" error and that A is supposed to be pointing that out, but I do not see how it accomplishes that because the language is just so convoluted to me. Can you please parse this sentence for me?
"It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source."

What is "the position"?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Casey!

"Position" is essentially equivalent to "viewpoint" or "assertion." In this case, the "position" the answer choice is referring to is Walcott's classification.

"merit of the position" = "The true significance...is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott's own classification." In other words, Walcott's own classification is not likely to have as much merit as the recent classification.

"content of that position" = "His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true." In other words, the content of Walcott's classification probably just confirmed what had already been established by science.

"evidence about the position's source" = "Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment." In other words, the source of Walcott's classification (Walcott himself!) was part of the scientific establishment.

Basically, this argument is: Walcott was a prominent member of the scientific establishment (premise), therefore the content of his classifications probably just confirmed what the scientific establishment had already taken to be true (intermediate conclusion), therefore his classification has less merit than the more recent classification (main conclusion).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[simonsap]

Argument rephrased: Current science better classifies the value of X because the past classifications were outdated.

Argument rephrased another way: Walcot confirmed the bias of the establishment to which he belonged and therefore his classifications are wrong compared to the modern ones.

flaw: Ad hominem - i.e. Outdated science was wrong - but no reasons provided other than that it is outdated.

[annabelle.swift]

"Position" is essentially equivalent to "viewpoint" or "assertion." In this case, the "position" the answer choice is referring to is Walcott's classification.

I initially ruled out (A) as a loser because I didn't think there was a position in the stimulus. (A) makes sense now, but how is Walcott's classification a "position"? Would it be correct to say that a scientific classification is like a theory/hypothesis, which is like a viewpoint?

Basically, a "classification" felt more objective to me than a "viewpoint" or "position."

[Adam Tyson]

A position is just another word for an opinion or viewpoint, annabelle.swift. Any time someone asserts that something is true or accurate, they are taking a position. If I classify the movie "Pulp Fiction" as a comedy, I am taking a position. If I say that pumpkin spice lattes are delicious, I am taking a position. Wherever you stand on any issue, that is your position (in fact, think of it literally that way - "where you stand" in the physical sense IS the position you are in.)

Walcott classified some unusual fossils, and in so doing, he took a position: "Here's what I think we should call these things." It's that position - Walcott's stand on the issue of how those fossils should be classified - that the author is attacking.