Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the question. The chief limitation of natural science is that it is not human. But we have to live with human beings including ourselves- and nearly…
Question and options
Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the question.
The chief limitation of natural science is that it is not human. But we have to live with human beings including ourselves- and nearly all the problems of life are human, whereas the problems and subject- matter of physics, chemistry and biology are not. When we enter their laboratories, we find no human there, except ourselves and our fellow-workers. We are in a world of cells, elements, and atoms (or whatever substitutes for them the latest analysis reveals). There are obvious dangers in living in such a world. It is too unlike the world of men to be a good preparation for it; the fundamental reality in that world is human personality: the ideal society is a community of such personalities, self controlling, self-developing, self-respecting and respecting others. But natural science is not concerned with personality, at least in this sense and in their relations; and there is a risk that when we return to the human world, we may be inclined to ignore its difference from the laboratory, and even to treat men as if they were elements or cells. It is perhaps their training which explains why some scientists are sympathetic towards communism.
Some people turn to communism because it offers them a positive faith in an age of skepticism, makes their decision for them and once accepted, relieves them of the painful task of thinking for themselves. Materialistic scientists are attracted to communism for a different reason. Its drastic methods resemble those inanimate materials with atoms and cells, manipulating and controlling them in the interest of a great overriding end. It is this control and manipulation that makes the triumphs of science possible; and it seems natural to apply a similar technique to social and political problems and so achieve more rapid and effective results than the tedious methods of persuasion allow. This technique appears to offer the quickest way to a better and more rational world and in so good a cause it seems wrong to be too tender with individual personalities and conscience.
The chief limitation of natural science is that it is not human. But we have to live with human beings including ourselves- and nearly all the problems of life are human, whereas the problems and subject- matter of physics, chemistry and biology are not. When we enter their laboratories, we find no human there, except ourselves and our fellow-workers. We are in a world of cells, elements, and atoms (or whatever substitutes for them the latest analysis reveals). There are obvious dangers in living in such a world. It is too unlike the world of men to be a good preparation for it; the fundamental reality in that world is human personality: the ideal society is a community of such personalities, self controlling, self-developing, self-respecting and respecting others. But natural science is not concerned with personality, at least in this sense and in their relations; and there is a risk that when we return to the human world, we may be inclined to ignore its difference from the laboratory, and even to treat men as if they were elements or cells. It is perhaps their training which explains why some scientists are sympathetic towards communism.
Some people turn to communism because it offers them a positive faith in an age of skepticism, makes their decision for them and once accepted, relieves them of the painful task of thinking for themselves. Materialistic scientists are attracted to communism for a different reason. Its drastic methods resemble those inanimate materials with atoms and cells, manipulating and controlling them in the interest of a great overriding end. It is this control and manipulation that makes the triumphs of science possible; and it seems natural to apply a similar technique to social and political problems and so achieve more rapid and effective results than the tedious methods of persuasion allow. This technique appears to offer the quickest way to a better and more rational world and in so good a cause it seems wrong to be too tender with individual personalities and conscience.
In the laboratories, we are in the world of
- the cells
- the skeletons
- cells, elements and atoms
- None of the given options is correct
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: C - cells, elements and atoms
The passage says that in the laboratory “we are in a world of cells, elements, and atoms”. “The cells” names only one of the three, and skeletons are not mentioned, so a catch-all denying every option is also wrong.
Practice for these exams
-
CUSAT CAT Integrated IPR Ph.D.
Related question papers
Related exam syllabi
More solved explanations in English Language
- Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows. Smokejumpers are often asked to address to organizations and the public groups about the…
- Directions: Choose the word or phrase that best fills the blank in the given sentence. The Finance Minister denied completely that prices ______ the budget.
- Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the question. Laws of nature are not commands but statements of facts. The use of the word "law" in this context…
- Read the following passage and answer the question. Shorn of legalese, the UAPA prohibits a judge from granting an individual bail if, on a perusal of the police…
- Read the passage and answer the question. Under very early common law, all felonies were punishable by death. The perpetrators of the felony were hanged whether or…