Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?a)The endorsement of strong scientism, asserting that scientific knowledge is the sole knowledge we possess.b)The advocacy of weak scientism, contending that scientific knowledge is the most superior form of knowledge we possess.c)The definition of scientism as a term employed to castigate the worth of scientific fields.d)The belief that non-scientific disciplines hold an equal value compared to scientific disciplines, according to the author.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.