Self-study
Passage A.
P1
████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ███ █ ██████ █████ ████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███
Intro to Popper ·
Power of negative evidence
A single black swan disproves that all swans are white
Asymmetry ·
Between positive and negative evidence
Positive evidence has no value
Requirements of Science ·
Search for negative evidence; making falsifiable predictions
P2
████████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███
Critique of Popper ·
Negative evidence is not as powerful as he believes
Premise ·
Theories have to work together to entail predictions
So a failed prediction means some theory is false, but it's unclear which one.
███████ █
P3
████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ █████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███
Prediction ·
Orbit of Uranus
Multiple theories working together to entail the predictions. This can be framed as an application of Passage A.
Prediction ·
Failed
At least one of the theories is wrong.
Explanation ·
There's another planet
Scientists discovered Neptune.
P4
█████ ████████████ █████ █████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███
Prediction ·
Orbit of Mercury
Prediction ·
Failed
Perhaps Newton's laws are incorrect or perhaps there's another planet.
Explanation ·
Newton's laws are incorrect
Einstein's general theory of relativity is more correct.
Passage Style
27.
Which one of the following ██████████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ██
a
Galileo proposed that █████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███ ████
In this scenario, a theory is out of sync with actual observations of the tides, and nothing is identified to help reconcile the theory with the observations. This isn’t analogous with the discovery of Neptune, where observations only initially call a theory into question until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again.
b
By observing "variable ██████████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████████ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
In this scenario, an observation settles a question. There’s no theory that initially gets called into question and then later seems right again. Meanwhile, we’re looking for a scenario where an observation first calls a theory into question, the way observations of Uranus’s orbit called Newton’s laws into question. Some further observation is then needed (like the discovery of Neptune) in order to make the theory seem right again.
c
Walter Alvarez postulated ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████
In this scenario, a theory is crafted and then supporting evidence is found. Alvarez’s theory is never called into question by any observations. But we’re looking for a scenario where observations do call a theory into question, up until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again.
d
Bernard Brunhes discovered █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████
In this scenario, an observation leads to a new hypothesis. We’re looking for a scenario where observations initially call a certain theory into question until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again.
e
When a neutron ██████ ████ █ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████████████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ████ █ █████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████
In this scenario, observations initially call a theory into question until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again. This is analogous to the discovery of Neptune, where observations (of Uranus’s orbit) called a theory (Newton’s) into question until some overlooked thing (Neptune) was discovered and accounted for.