Q16

[p.k.sharma901]

Hi
Upon reading the passage, I inferred that objectivism is a neutral event that isn't skewed.
How is the correct answer choice (A) neutral in any sense?

Please help!
THanks

[Alvanith.law]

Hi p.k.sharma901

I guess the question stems actually asks the opinion of "those who reject objectivism" towards "the law's quest for truth," rather than the opinion from the proponents of the objectivism.

The objectivism, as you generalized, is searching for "a neutral event that isn't skewed" and the passage subsequently suggests "the law's quest for truth" is a manifestation of the objectivism. But, immediately following at lines 19~20, the author states that there is "no such thing as the neutral, objective observer." So it suggests that the opponents of the objectivism would think "the law's quest for truth" is useless because the neutral objective observer is non-exist. Therefore, it feels like, to "those who reject objectivism," this quest for truth for objectivism is like a hunt for an imaginary animal because these two activities are all searching for something that does not exist.

Hope I understand this right and hope this could be helpful:)

[christine.defenbaugh]

Excellent breakdown Alvanith.law!

p.k.sharma901, I worry that you may be misreading the passage and question.

Objectivism is not the neutral, unskewed event - rather, objectivism "holds that there is a single neutral description of each event that is unskewed...". In other words, objectivism believes in a neutral, unskewed event, rather than being one itself.

Additionally, Alvanith.law correctly notes that this question asks what those who reject objectivism would think of the "quest for truth", not what the objectivists would think. The line reference at lines 19-20 is spot on, noting that "there is no such thing as the neutral, objective observer", and thus, no such thing as a neutral, unskewed description of an event. Therefore, the "truth" the law is searching for does not exist - just like an imaginary animal one might hunt. That supports (A) in full!


Not How They See It
(B) Anti-objectivists do not see a neutral truth as more valuable - in fact they think it does not exist at all.
(C) This would imply the truth is simply difficult to find. Anti-objectivists think it is impossible to find.
(D) While the quest for truth may compare different versions of an event, anti-objectivists would not characterize these versions as 'apples and oranges' - in fact, they would be more likely to see every version as potentially valid.
(E) Like (C), this simply suggests that the search for truth is arduous. Anti-objectivists believe it is impossible.


I hope this helps clear things up a bit!

[WaltGrace1983]

I think you may also be able to reason out (E) because "scientific analysis" promotes the idea of being objective.