ChaseDream

标题: 1999-12-2-26 [打印本页]

作者: sevfye 时间: 2007-10-1 00:14
标题: 1999-12-2-26

26. Peopel ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that diescpline. Take, for example, chemstry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists-a group whose superstition and appeals to magic dominated the early development of chemical theory.

The reasong above is susceptible to criticism because the author

B) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and parctices differ from those of the alchemsits mentioned

why B is correct?

Why does the author need to consider how current theories differ from those alchemists? I think what he needs to consider is just origin. I have not find flaw in the argument. Thanks in advance.

作者: dphxmg 时间: 2008-1-5 00:27
这个推理和文//革/初期流行的血//统//论的推理是一丘之貉。

作者: kangkangkang 时间: 2008-1-5 01:58
what is the origin of a discipline has nothing to do with its current scientific value. the discipline might have evolved from superstition but it may be very scientific now.

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)