All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Analyse the following passage and provide ap... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:
Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.
But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.
We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.
A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.
Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.
Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.
Consider the two statements from the passage:
Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.
Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.
Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?
(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.
  • a)
    Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.
  • b)
    Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.
  • c)
    Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.
  • d)
    Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the...
Option A can be concluded as TRUE.
In Option B, Statements I can be concluded as FALSE.
In Option C, Statement II can be concluded as FALSE.
Option D can be concluded TRUE because we all can be philosophically wrong and experimental physicists are amongst “us”.
Option E cannot be concluded as nowhere it is mentioned that theoretical physicist can pinpoint shortcoming of experimental physicists. In other words, this conclusion on Statement II cannot be definitely arrived at. Hence option E is the correct answer.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the...
Analysis of the Passage
The passage discusses the nature of scientific knowledge, emphasizing that all scientific laws are approximations of the truth and can change with new discoveries.
Understanding the Statements
- Statement I: "The mass of an object never seems to change."
- Statement II: "Mass is found to increase with velocity."
These statements highlight the evolving understanding of mass in physics, where initial beliefs can be proven inaccurate through experimentation.
Why Option (d) is the Correct Answer
- Context of Statement I: The passage suggests that while mass appears constant under normal conditions, it is an approximation. It does not claim that this statement is philosophically wrong; rather, it indicates that there are limitations to its applicability.
- Context of Statement II: This statement reveals a deeper understanding of mass as it relates to velocity, contradicting the simplicity of the first statement. It shows how theoretical physicists can derive more complex truths from experimental observations.
- Why (d) Cannot be Concluded:
- The passage does not claim that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists. Instead, it states that both roles are crucial, with each contributing to the understanding of physical laws.
- Thus, concluding that Statement II shows a philosophical error in Statement I overlooks the collaborative nature of scientific discovery.
Conclusion
In summary, option (d) cannot be concluded as the passage supports a collaborative approach between theoretical and experimental physicists, rather than positioning one as superior to the other.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Q. Which of the following options is DEFINITELY NOT an approximation to the complete truth?

Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.'Big Bang' is a popular theory related to the origin of the universe. It states that the universe was the outcome of a big bang that released enormous energy.Q. Which of the following is the MOST PROBABLE inference about the big bang theory?

Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Deborah Mayo is a philosopher of science who has attempted to capture the implications of the new experimentalism in a philosophically rigorous way. Mayo focuses on the detailed way in which claims are validated by experiment, and is concerned with identifying just what claims are borne out and how. A key idea underlying her treatment is that a claim can only be said to be supported by experiment if the various ways in which the claim could be at fault have been investigated and eliminated. A claim can only be said to be borne out by experiment, and a severe test of a claim, as usefully construed by Mayo, must be such that the claim would be unlikely to pass if it were false.Her idea can be explained by some simple examples. Suppose Snell's law of refraction of light is tested by some very rough experiments in which very large margins of error are attributed to the measurements of angles of incidence and refraction, and suppose that the results are shown to be compatible with the law within those margins of error. Has the law been supported by experiments that have severely tested it? From Mayo's perspective the answer is no because, owing to the roughness of the measurements, the law of refraction would be quite likely to pass this test even if it were false and some other law differing not too much from Snell's law true. An exercise I carried out in my school-teaching days serves to drive this point home. My students had conducted some not very careful experiments to test Snell's law. I then presented them with some alternative laws of refraction that had been suggested in antiquity and mediaeval times, prior to the discovery of Snell's law, and invited the students to test them with the measurements they had used to test Snell's law; because of the wide margins of error they had attributed to their measurements, all of these alternative laws pass the test. This clearly brings out the point that the experiments in question did not constitute a severe test of Snell's law. The law would have passed the test even if it were false and one of the historical alternatives true.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?

Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Deborah Mayo is a philosopher of science who has attempted to capture the implications of the new experimentalism in a philosophically rigorous way. Mayo focuses on the detailed way in which claims are validated by experiment, and is concerned with identifying just what claims are borne out and how. A key idea underlying her treatment is that a claim can only be said to be supported by experiment if the various ways in which the claim could be at fault have been investigated and eliminated. A claim can only be said to be borne out by experiment, and a severe test of a claim, as usefully construed by Mayo, must be such that the claim would be unlikely to pass if it were false.Her idea can be explained by some simple examples. Suppose Snell's law of refraction of light is tested by some very rough experiments in which very large margins of error are attributed to the measurements of angles of incidence and refraction, and suppose that the results are shown to be compatible with the law within those margins of error. Has the law been supported by experiments that have severely tested it? From Mayo's perspective the answer is no because, owing to the roughness of the measurements, the law of refraction would be quite likely to pass this test even if it were false and some other law differing not too much from Snell's law true. An exercise I carried out in my school-teaching days serves to drive this point home. My students had conducted some not very careful experiments to test Snell's law. I then presented them with some alternative laws of refraction that had been suggested in antiquity and mediaeval times, prior to the discovery of Snell's law, and invited the students to test them with the measurements they had used to test Snell's law; because of the wide margins of error they had attributed to their measurements, all of these alternative laws pass the test. This clearly brings out the point that the experiments in question did not constitute a severe test of Snell's law. The law would have passed the test even if it were false and one of the historical alternatives true.Q. Which of the following conclusion can be drawn from the passage?

Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.Deborah Mayo is a philosopher of science who has attempted to capture the implications of the new experimentalism in a philosophically rigorous way. Mayo focuses on the detailed way in which claims are validated by experiment, and is concerned with identifying just what claims are borne out and how. A key idea underlying her treatment is that a claim can only be said to be supported by experiment if the various ways in which the claim could be at fault have been investigated and eliminated. A claim can only be said to be borne out by experiment, and a severe test of a claim, as usefully construed by Mayo, must be such that the claim would be unlikely to pass if it were false.Her idea can be explained by some simple examples. Suppose Snell's law of refraction of light is tested by some very rough experiments in which very large margins of error are attributed to the measurements of angles of incidence and refraction, and suppose that the results are shown to be compatible with the law within those margins of error. Has the law been supported by experiments that have severely tested it? From Mayo's perspective the answer is no because, owing to the roughness of the measurements, the law of refraction would be quite likely to pass this test even if it were false and some other law differing not too much from Snell's law true. An exercise I carried out in my school-teaching days serves to drive this point home. My students had conducted some not very careful experiments to test Snell's law. I then presented them with some alternative laws of refraction that had been suggested in antiquity and mediaeval times, prior to the discovery of Snell's law, and invited the students to test them with the measurements they had used to test Snell's law; because of the wide margins of error they had attributed to their measurements, all of these alternative laws pass the test. This clearly brings out the point that the experiments in question did not constitute a severe test of Snell's law. The law would have passed the test even if it were false and one of the historical alternatives true.Q. As per Mayo's perspective, which of the following best defines the phrase scientific explanation ?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations-to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the "wrong" ones, and then we find the "right" ones. Now, how can an experiment be "wrong"? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a "law" was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That "law" is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light.A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the more wrong we are.Finally, and  most  interesting,  philosophically  we  are completely  wrong  with  the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws.Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.Consider the two statements from the passage:Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.Q. Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?(d)  Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.a) Both statements I and II are approximations to the complete truth.b) Both statements I and II are complete truths so far as we know.c) Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.d) Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

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