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.