Last visit was: 12 Jul 2024, 15:36 It is currently 12 Jul 2024, 15:36

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29080
Own Kudos [?]: 34063 [12]
Given Kudos: 25479
Send PM
avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 505
Own Kudos [?]: 131 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
avatar
Active Member
Active Member
Joined: 03 Apr 2019
Posts: 195
Own Kudos [?]: 272 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2020
Posts: 440
Own Kudos [?]: 60 [0]
Given Kudos: 68
Send PM
Re: Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully [#permalink]
plz explain 2nd blank.... and in detail
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29080
Own Kudos [?]: 34063 [1]
Given Kudos: 25479
Send PM
Re: Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
OE

Quote:
Feyermahn accuses Galileo of being only partially rational. His argument is that all of scientific thought is built on human endeavor, which is prone to biases and therefore not entirely objective. For the first blank, you want words showing that Feyermahn isn’t criticizing only Galileo. (A) Exclusively implicate works best. The second sentence implies that Galileo isn’t perfectly rational, and thus (D) found wanting, which means “lacking,” works best. (F) Dismissed as inconsequential is too extreme. The sentence is only implying that Galileo came up short. The third sentence moves to modern chroniclers of science, whom Feyermahn urges to be aware of the human weaknesses of scientists. Those writers of science who choose not to would be (H) remiss, or negligent. (I) Contrarian implies a deliberate stubbornness that isn’t supported by the context. Why is partially repudiate incorrect?

Repudiate means, roughly, “to go against or to deny the truth or validity of something.” So repudiate does kind of fit, but the word that throws everything off is the word partially. Feyermahn’s criticism of Galileo’s scientific rationalism brings into question the entire foundation and history of Western scientific thought: “does not the Italian astronomer, but rather the very edifice of Western thought.” That’s a pretty big thing! To say that Feyermahn partially repudiated Galileo would be to say that he only questioned or denied part of Galileo, and by extension, only part of “the very edifice of Western thought.” But you know from the rest of the passage that he called into question both Galileo’s entire body of scientific work and the entire historical view of western science. So “partially repudiated” just doesn’t fit the blank.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2020
Posts: 110
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 31
Send PM
Re: Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully [#permalink]
Blank 1:
H.Feyermahn though he insists that Galileo did not fully uphold tenets of scientific rationalism, he does not "fully implicate" the him but the very edifice institution of Western thought. Implicate means blame. Instead of fully blaming Galileo he blames the very institution of Western thought.

Blank2:
For if Galileo is the purported exemplar of rational thinking, and yet is "found wanting", then the history of science cannot be understood as an endless succession of scientists carrying....
Here "found wanting" implies that even Galileo who is considered a model of scientific thought is found deficient then the succession of scientists who work in scientific field are prejudiced through human-biases.

Blank-3:
Thus historiographers would be "remiss" (i.e missing something) if they didn't include such human foibles/mistakes of the scientific endeavors.
GRE Instructor
Joined: 24 Dec 2018
Posts: 1036
Own Kudos [?]: 1379 [1]
Given Kudos: 24
Send PM
Re: Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully [#permalink]
1
Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully uphold the tenets of scientific rationalism, does not (i) ______ the Italian astronomer, but rather the very edifice of Western thought. For if Galileo is the purported exemplar of rational thinking, and yet is (ii) _______ , then the history of science cannot be understood as an endless succession of scientists carrying out their work free of all-too-human biases. Thus, Feyermahn admonishes, in faithfully chronicling the sweep of science in the last three hundred years, historiographers would be (iii) ______ not to include the human foibles that were part of even the most ostensibly Apollonian endeavors.

The phrase "did not uphold the tenets of scientific rationalism" suggests Heinrich Feyermahn intends to criticise Galileo. But the phrase "does not (i) ______ the Italian astronomer, but rather the very edifice of Western thought" suggests that he does not wish to stop with criticising Galileo but the entire edifice of Western thought. Therefore the word for the first blank has to be exclusively implicate.

For the second blank, the history of cannot be understood as an endless succession of scientists carrying out their work free of all-too-human biases only if the purported exemplar of rational thinking, Galileo is found wanting. That is Galileo has flaws such as human biases. The choice dismissed as inconsequential is too extreme and Feyermahn never had such intentions.

Historians who do not include human foibles that were part of even the most Apollonian - well-ordered and self-disciplined endeavours - would be accused of negligence. Thus the word for the third blank is remiss. To be a contrarian is to hold views (that may be true) contrary to the mainstream opinion and does not imply such views are wrong.
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 07 Jan 2021
Posts: 1544
Own Kudos [?]: 51 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully [#permalink]
Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Prep Club for GRE Bot
[#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Forum Moderator
17 posts
GRE Instructor
218 posts
GRE Instructor
1036 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne