All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Verbal Exam  >  Verbal Questions  >  To know by parts is science, knowing the whol... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.
  • a)
    Knowledge of parts is science,
  • b)
    Knowing by parts is science,
  • c)
    To know partially is science,
  • d)
    To know by parts is science,
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosoph...
Faulty parallelism in all the other options.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosoph...
Understanding the Answer:

In order to explain the answer, let's break down the given statement and analyze it step by step.

The statement suggests that there is a distinction between two ways of knowing: knowing by parts and knowing the whole as a whole. It further suggests that knowing by parts is science, while knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.

Explanation:

1. Knowledge of parts is science:
This means that when we have knowledge about individual parts or components of a system or subject, it falls under the domain of science. Science often involves breaking down complex phenomena into smaller parts to understand and explain them. By studying the individual parts, we can gain knowledge about their properties, behavior, and interactions.

2. Knowing by parts is science:
This emphasizes the process of acquiring knowledge by studying and understanding the individual parts or components of a system. By examining each part separately, we can gain a deeper understanding of its characteristics and functions. This approach is scientific in nature as it involves systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis.

3. To know by parts is science:
This phrase reiterates the fact that the process of acquiring knowledge by focusing on individual parts or components is considered scientific. It emphasizes that understanding the parts is essential to understanding the whole.

4. Knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy:
This part of the statement suggests that when we aim to comprehend the whole system or subject as a unified entity, it falls under the realm of philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, and more. It seeks to understand the underlying principles and interconnectedness of various parts or aspects of reality.

Conclusion:

Based on the given statement, the correct answer is option 'B' - "Knowing by parts is science." This answer encapsulates the idea that acquiring knowledge by focusing on individual parts or components is a scientific approach. Conversely, understanding the whole as a unified entity is considered a philosophical endeavor.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals.The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly. If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of a political system with weak political parties?

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals. The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly.If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the authors claim about single-term political systems?

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s. Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals.The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly. If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Suppose that America adopted a single-term political system. Considering the foreign observers mentioned in the passage. how would they be expected to respond to such a development?

To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2024 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Verbal. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Verbal Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice To know by parts is science, knowing the whole as a whole is philosophy.a)Knowledge of parts is science,b)Knowing by parts is science,c)To know partially is science,d)To know by parts is science,Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup