VARC1000 (Season 1) RC Lesson #7: General Understanding Questions-2

Summary

This lesson delves into the critique of scientism, exploring its application to social sciences. The instructor discusses the flawed assumption that social life can be dominated using the same scientific methods as physical nature. The script argues that scientism's approach, which treats social and natural worlds as identical, is fundamentally flawed due to the complex and uncontrollable nature of social interactions. The lecture also covers strategies for understanding and answering general understanding questions in the context of passages like the one from 'A Cat' 1992.

Takeaways

• 📚 The lesson focuses on understanding general questions in CAT passages, particularly those related to scientism and its critique.
• 🔍 The instructor emphasizes that various aspects of understanding, such as purpose, tone, and title, are interconnected in passage analysis.
• 🗣️ The script discusses a 1992 CAT passage, suggesting that the fundamental issues it addresses may still be relevant today.
• 🤔 The author of the passage is critical of scientism, arguing that it has failed to provide satisfactory answers to existential questions and social issues.
• 🧐 The critique is based on the belief that scientism incorrectly equates physical nature with social life, proposing identical methods for understanding both.
• 🔄 The author challenges the idea that social sciences can mirror the technical mastery and control seen in natural sciences, highlighting the differences between them.
• 🚫 The script points out that scientism's approach to social sciences is flawed, creating problems rather than solving them.
• 🤨 The instructor guides students to identify the author's attitude towards scientism, which is critical and argumentative, not dismissive or descriptive.
• 📉 The passage argues that scientism's application to social sciences has not advanced human mastery but instead has led to intellectual and practical issues.
• 📚 The instructor uses the passage to teach students how to analyze the author's tone, purpose, and the main argument within a text.
• 🔑 The takeaway is to understand that the author's critique of scientism is based on a detailed analysis of its fallacies and the consequences of its application to social sciences.

Q & A

What is the main topic discussed in the script?

The main topic discussed in the script is the critique of scientism, particularly its application to social sciences and the problems associated with treating social life as if it were fundamentally similar to physical nature.

What does the author argue about scientism's approach to social life?

The author argues that scientism's approach to social life is flawed because it assumes that social life can be dominated and understood using the same methods as physical nature, which the author believes is a mistaken analogy.

What is the author's attitude towards the application of scientism to social sciences?

The author's attitude is critical, as they believe that the application of scientism to social sciences is problematic and has led to more issues rather than furthering human mastery of the social world.

Why does the author consider the argument that physical nature and social life are fundamentally alike to be fallacious?

The author considers this argument to be fallacious because modern scientific thought has invalidated the notion that physical nature is an embodiment of reason, and because social life does not allow for the same degree of technical control and cause-effect predictability as the natural world.

What is the author's view on the quest for technical mastery over social life?

The author believes that the quest for technical mastery over social life, inspired by scientism, is misguided because it fails to recognize the inherent differences between social and physical phenomena.

How does the author describe the relationship between physical nature and social world according to scientism?

The author describes this relationship as one where scientism sees physical nature as a model for the social world, assuming that the same methods of control and understanding applicable to nature can be applied to social life.

What is the author's claim about the uniqueness of truth in scientism?

The author claims that scientism posits the existence of a single truth, the truth of science, and believes that by knowing this truth, humanity would know everything, which the author critiques as an oversimplification.

What does the author suggest is the problem with applying the methods of physical sciences to social sciences?

The author suggests that the problem lies in the fact that social sciences deal with human actions and complex interactions that cannot be controlled or predicted with the same precision as physical phenomena.

How does the author justify the claim that scientism's approach is flawed?

The author justifies this claim by explaining that social life is not like physical nature in terms of control and predictability, and that modern scientific thought has already challenged the notion of physical nature as the embodiment of reason.

What is the author's stance on the idea that social sciences can be explained through natural sciences?

The author is against this idea, stating that it is a serious mistake to apply the principles of natural sciences to social sciences due to the fundamental differences between the two domains.

What type of questions does the script suggest for enhancing understanding of a passage?

The script suggests questions that require analysis of the author's attitude, understanding of the main topic, evaluation of the author's claims, and identification of the problems with scientism's approach to social sciences.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to General Understanding Questions

The script begins with an introduction to general understanding questions, specifically within the context of a CAT (Common Admission Test) passage. The instructor emphasizes the interconnected nature of different aspects of understanding, such as purpose, idea, and title, and introduces a 1992 CAT passage. The focus is on scientism and its impact on humanity's quest for understanding the universe and existence. The instructor suggests that scientism has failed to provide satisfactory answers to these existential questions, despite its technical mastery over inanimate nature.

05:01

🤔 Critique of Scientism's Application to Social Sciences

This paragraph delves into the critique of scientism, highlighting the author's argument that scientism's application to social sciences is flawed. The author argues that scientism's approach, which treats physical nature and social life as fundamentally alike, is mistaken. The paragraph discusses the limitations of scientism in modeling the social world with the same technical precision as the natural world, and how modern scientific thought challenges the notion that physical nature embodies reason, thus invalidating the analogy between the natural and social worlds.

10:02

🔬 The Distinction Between Physical and Social Sciences

The instructor continues to dissect the author's argument, emphasizing the distinction between physical and social sciences. It is explained that while physical nature can be controlled and predicted with a high degree of certainty, the social world is complex and does not lend itself to the same kind of deterministic modeling. The author argues that scientism's failure to recognize this difference leads to flawed conclusions and a misunderstanding of social phenomena.

15:05

🧐 The Author's Attitude and Purpose in Critiquing Scientism

In this paragraph, the focus shifts to the author's attitude and purpose in critiquing scientism. The instructor points out that the author is not merely dismissing scientism but is actively criticizing it as problematic. The author's concern is with the approach to social sciences, particularly the application of scientific methods that are inappropriate for understanding social phenomena. The paragraph also discusses the implications of the author's critique for the broader understanding of scientism's limitations.

🔍 The Importance of Context in Answering Passage-Based Questions

The final paragraph wraps up the discussion by emphasizing the importance of context in answering passage-based questions. The instructor notes that while some questions may be answered by skimming the passage or focusing on specific paragraphs, a comprehensive understanding requires reading the entire passage. The paragraph also touches on the variety of questions that can be derived from a single passage, each requiring a different approach to analysis.

Keywords

💡Scientism

Scientism refers to an approach that applies scientific methods and principles to all areas of inquiry, including those traditionally considered to be within the domain of philosophy or the humanities. In the video, the author criticizes scientism for its flawed argument that social life can be understood and controlled using the same methods as physical nature. The script mentions that scientism has led to a technical mastery of inanimate nature but has not provided satisfactory answers to the existential questions of humanity.

💡Technical Mastery

Technical mastery is the ability to control and manipulate a particular area of knowledge or skill. The script discusses how scientism has achieved technical mastery over inanimate nature but has failed to do the same for social life, indicating a limitation in applying scientific methods to social sciences.

💡Riddle of the Universe

The 'riddle of the universe' in the script symbolizes the deep, existential questions about the nature of existence and the universe. The author suggests that scientism, despite its advancements, has not been able to provide comprehensive answers to these fundamental questions.

💡Social Being

A 'social being' refers to an individual's existence and interactions within a society. The script critiques scientism's approach to understanding social life, arguing that it cannot be dominated or controlled with the same methods used for physical nature.

💡Causality

Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. The script mentions that scientism views nature as the embodiment of reason through causality, which has led to the belief that social life can be modeled after the natural world. However, the author argues that this is a fallacious argument.

💡Fallacious Argument

A fallacious argument is one that contains logical errors or false premises. The video's author labels scientism's approach as fallacious because it incorrectly assumes that the methods applicable to physical nature can be directly applied to social life.

💡Domination

In the context of the script, 'domination' refers to the control or mastery over a subject. The author discusses scientism's attempt to dominate social life using the same methods as those used in the natural sciences, which the author argues is misguided.

💡Connective Tissues

While not directly related to the main theme of scientism, 'connective tissues' is mentioned in the script as an example of a topic that might be discussed in a different context, such as physiology. It illustrates the diversity of subjects that can be analyzed through various scientific or academic lenses.

💡Evaluation

Evaluation in the script refers to the author's critical assessment of scientism. The author does not merely describe scientism but evaluates it negatively, providing a critical perspective on its application to social sciences.

💡Control

Control, in the script, is discussed in the context of scientism's goal to exert the same level of control over social life as it has over physical nature. The author argues that this control is not feasible due to the inherent differences between social and physical realms.

💡Isolated Facts

Isolated facts refer to individual pieces of information or data points that are considered in isolation. The script contrasts these with the complex, interconnected nature of social life, suggesting that scientism's approach to understanding the world through isolated facts is insufficient for social sciences.

Highlights

The lesson focuses on understanding general questions related to CAT passages, particularly those from 1992.

Interconnection between different types of questions such as purpose, idea, and title is emphasized.

The importance of identifying the author's issue with scientism and its impact on humanity's understanding of the universe and existence.

The author's claim that scientism has led to a flawed approach to understanding social life by equating it with physical nature.

The argument that scientism's method for dominating social life, based on the assumption of similarity with physical nature, is fundamentally flawed.

The author's assertion that scientism's belief in a single truth of science is problematic and has not led to a better understanding of the social world.

The critique of scientism's fallacious argument that social sciences can be explained through natural sciences.

The author's justification for why the analogy between natural and social worlds is mistaken, highlighting the differences in control and predictability.

The explanation of how modern scientific thought invalidates the notion that physical nature embodies reason, challenging scientism's foundational belief.

The distinction between the controllability of physical nature and the unpredictability of social life, as a critique of scientism's approach.

The author's argument that scientism's application to social sciences has not furthered human mastery but created problems.

The discussion on the limitations of scientism's method in social sciences, where a single cause can entail multiple effects.

The author's critique of scientism's failure to recognize the complexity and diversity of social phenomena compared to natural phenomena.

The examination of the author's attitude towards the application of scientism, which is critical and argumentative.

The identification of the author's concern with the approach to social sciences within scientism, rather than other topics like neurology or nutrition.

The clarification of the type of book the passage is likely from, based on its content and focus on the critique of scientism in social sciences.

Transcripts

general understanding question and in

this lesson we're going to look at

a cat passage a couple of them actually

and and try and see how to deal with

these general understanding questions

now i've not created separate lesson one

for purpose one for idea one for two and

one for title

because i believe that all these things

are interconnected

we're gonna look at a cat 1992 passage

we're not born then right let's see how

the

capped passages where in those days

probably when your parents took the test

nothing must have changed by the way

let's get going

i know the font size is very small so

i will have to this from 99 to so let me

okay i hope that's better

okay so that's actually this is the

second paragraph this should have been

the second paragraph there okay

ah and there's a fourth paragraph so

we'll read and try and find out the

passage map

four words and every paragraph and see

how

it goes and then answer those questions

scientism has left humanity so or the

the the discussion is about scientism

something about scientism is what the

author wants to say i'm interested in

his claim about scientific

scientism has left humanity in our

technical mastery of inanimate nature

but improvise us in our quest for an

answer to the riddle of the universe

and our existence in it okay

at this point in time you're going what

just

what was the sentence this is in there

which is about to figure out what the

author has an issue i think author seems

to an issue with scientific

scientism has done worse

very good so we we already i can see

the author there saying that author has

an issue we

only can think of an author who is a

little bit of

angry about these things uh then

than with respect to our status as

social being

something that's a social being that is

to earn life with our fellow human

beings

the quest for the technical mastery of

social life

comparable to our mastery over nature

did not find scientism

for a loss for an answer reason

suggested

that physical nature and social life

were fundamentally alike

and therefore proposed identical method

for the domination

in this case there might be certain part

here which would have been

uh which could have bounced here but you

see this transition were there which is

therefore

so that's a claim that we are interested

in scientists propose identical method

for their domination which is social

life and physical nature

okay so the basically what this practice

if you want to understand what the

passage paragraph saying the quest for

technical mastery of social life so

scientism

wanted to con master or understand

social life

and they had an answer scientist

did not find a loss for an answer okay

they had an answer they did not find

loss for answers

and the answer is that physical nature

and social life is fundamentally alike

and therefore propose identical method

for the domination ok

so according to scientism

a physical nature is same as social life

since reason in the form of causality

reveals itself most plainly in nature

nature became the model for social world

so nature is a model

for the social world and natural

sciences the image of what social

sciences one day would be

according to scientism there was only

one truth the truth of science

but knowing it humanity would know all

so from here to here if you actually

look at the whole

uh this particular part of the passage

it's about author trying to build the

foundation

as to what he wants to say is actually

describing about scientism

and the topic is specifically about

become a social being

and what scientists believe that

physical nature is equal to social

science

and nature became the model for social

world okay that's that's what is

happening there so

if you don't worry about all these

things there

the author is talking about scientism

okay

and where is it

propose identical method identical

method for the domination

the which is with the physical nature

and social science and according to them

uh uh according to them and nature

became the model for social world

and i got a scientist there was only one

truth through the fans knowing it he

might even know all

okay that's what the claim here is this

this was however a fallacious argument

the author's view is this particular

thing

argument is wrong

and flawed arguments he's using the word

fallacious so he's saying it's like

flawed argument

it's universe acceptance initiate

intellectual movement and political

technique

which rather than further human

master of the social world it actually

human market resources but we didn't

move on this actually created problem

he's essentially saying it is wrong

there is a problem here there's a

problem with

scientism the fact that they're thinking

that social

sciences can be explained through

natural sciences

interesting once you finish that in in

the first paragraph

very steadily creating his case or his

his major claim

that whatever is this argument is

fallacious or flawed argument

and you can then guess what it's going

to do uh next

is to try and justify justification

of that claim that is already made there

okay

let's say uh the analogy between natural

and social world is mistaken for two

reasons that's the problem explaining

why there's problem

he said there's a problem explain why

there's a problem on the one hand

human action is unable to model the

social world with the same degree of

technical perfection

that is possible in natural world we

cannot create a model so social world

is not the same as the natural world

that is reason number one as to why he

is saying that thing is wrong

on the other hand the very notion that

physical nature is

embodiment of reason from which an

analogy between natural and social work

derives

is invalidated by modern scientific

thought itself

second modern scientific thought has

already said that is wrong

okay that's all he's doing in paragraph

number two let's move on to paragraph

number three and see what happening

there

physical nature as is seen by

practitioner of science consists of now

he's talking about

uh physical nature what is physical

nature all about he's still

continuing in justification of the claim

that he made that there is a problem

physical nature as seen by the

practitioner of science consists of a

multitude of

isolated facts over which we have human

beings have complete control

we know that water boils the temperature

of 212 degrees fahrenheit

and by exposing water to this

temperature we can make it boil it will

we have complete control

all practical knowledge physical nature

all control over it essentially of the

same kind

physical nature we have complete control

or

you create a cause it will have an

effect you control the cause

you can control the effect that's what

is being said scientism propose the same

kind of knowledge

and the control health truthful social

world so

okay that's what it's that's again what

is saying the same kind of knowledge and

control for the social world

okay there is a controlled in social

world the search for a single course in

social sciences

but was a faithful copy of the method of

physical sciences

yet in the social sphere there is

the the logical coherence of natural

sciences finds no adequate object

and there is no single cause by the

creation of which one can create

affected will

any single cause of social sphere can

entail in indefinite number of

different effects and the same effect

can spring from an indefinite number of

different effects and the same effect

can differing from

an indefinite number of different causes

basically in physical world

you have a cause you have an effect and

you can completely control this but a

social world

that affect one cause can create

multiple effect and i think other

there are multiple things that create

the same effect the effect can create

most other things total kichli

so what's the passage back

uh scientism said physical nature is

same as so

physical nature same as social life so

nature is a model

author is saying no wait wait wait a

minute very limited you are wrong

one social world is different from the

single world the modern scientific

thought is already told you are wrong

let me explain why in physical world you

can control everything social world you

can't control how can i say the same

thing is

same it is wrong that's what the author

has said that is a passage man ladies

and gentlemen

now let's look at this question number

one

question number one says the author's

attitude towards application of

scientism

attitude tone application of scientists

and we already see that all there is

actually it is argumentative by the way

the passage or the taken opposite

negative evaluation you could say

author has taken a strong stance and

justify the stats

okay so in this case obviously approval

uh uh towards application scientific

social

approval is not the case this is

definitely not the case author will

commit suicide

if you mark this answer yeah

that's how bad the answer is criticism

is a good one criticism pretty good now

you're thinking about what about these

two things

understand scrutiny committed scrutiny

i'm still deciding i'm still

scrutinizing i'm still analyzing

the author has taken a position he has

done this scrutiny everything is done

he's taken a position you cannot say

that he's making a committed scrutiny

again scotland you're still looking at

things

what is it how is it going okay it's a

problem you see the problem author has

already

clearly mentioned the problem that is

not the answer choice

now dismissal ladies general what does

dismissal mean

dismissal mean that even if let's say i

know that something is wrong

i'm saying not important believe it

dismissal what nonsense

you can think of some of the political

leaders that you call saying look at him

based but author's attitude is different

it's not just about dismissing something

is actually very clearly criticizing it

it's actually saying

here that it

rather than fun third human

master the social but it was problematic

saying that it is a serious problem he's

not dispensing it he's saying there's a

problem we must know there's a problem

is actually doing criticism of an

attitude

ladies and gentlemen right and the

choice to this question is choice number

three

let's look at the second question which

is again based on the same passage

well let's take that thing this side

okay

so you can still see my face around here

in the passage author is more concerned

with which of the following so what is

the purpose

why did the author write first of all

you look at this word option number one

superstition did you ever think of

alien not mentioned at all superstition

is not mentioned at all first of all

second one upholding

all three of upholding anything is

attacking this is a good word

this is a good word attacking it's a

good word

that's a good word a particular approach

to social sciences

all the critical element is there social

sciences and approach towards social

sciences

earn approach approach sorry so that's

okay

that has made it specific okay in this

case scientism uh

uh approach that's okay so we'll keep

this on hold you might be wondering is

attacking a good word

figuratively yes literally no but yeah

he's attacking that position

he's going against that position

describing

that is the wrong word the tone is wrong

what do you mean describing author is

not describing something is not

expository ladies and gentlemen it is

evaluative

author has made a negative valuation

this is gone this is one is anyway gone

method of achieving control over human

world control

how do we achieve control over human

social behavior this is a wrong topic

completely

demonstration of the superiority of the

social science

over natural sciences this is the author

saying that social science is better

than natural science

no author is simply saying

don't apply natural sciences to social

sciences because those two things are

different

is not making the case that social

science is actually better

first of all the superiority has any way

a positive uh uh tone to it something is

better

is attacking so in this case answer

choice is

two let's look at another uh

one question from that same about a

different passage if you actually look

at the questions pretty interesting

which is why i picked this up the

question is now asking

the passage most probably has been taken

from a book

on what so neurology nutrition

physiology calisthenics and sometimes in

this case you will have to answer the

question based on the tone

or in this case based on the idea and

here

if you want to answer this particular

question you need to know the

meaning of this word neurology is one

that

deals with nerves i think nerves and

nervous system

of the body nutrition is about your diet

your nutrients your intake and stuff

like that

ah nutrients physiology is about how

your

bodily parts function

our body functions functioning of

certain part of the body

calisthenics calisthenics is a type of

exercise i think so people sometimes

take weight they don't take weight they

do all those

gymnastic type of thing and exercise so

that's that's a type of exercise

now it is important for us to understand

these three these things and then you

can

probably look at uh the whole

question here it talks about uh

talks about the connective tissues or

heterogeneous group of tissue derived

from

something they have general function

what their function maintaining the

structural integrity of organs

providing the cohesion of natural uh

support the body as a whole

the connective tissues including several

fibrous tissue that vary only in the

density and cellularity as well as more

is about the bone if you start looking

at individual bone skeleton

the tensile strength connective tissue

this this is actually about

the how the functioning of the body

uh which is which is physiology it is

not discussing

nervous system it is not about nutrition

not about calisthenics okay

so sometimes question can come in this

form as well

yeah now

that particular question by the way the

last one you could have answered the

question without actually reading the

passage but then the passage comes with

five questions

each question will want you to do

different things so you'll stick to the

same you read the passage

in the same fashion everywhere but it's

a certain question you don't have to

read the passage fully in fact

in question number one you just need the

first paragraph and say the person is

attacking scientism

that is enough to say that it's a

criticism in first option

that's enough to say say that author has

a

uh author was attacking a particular

approach

so those two questions could have

answered just by doing the first

paragraph in the in the last question

you could have answered the general

understanding question

but just kind of skimming through the

passage to answer that question

but then i'm not recommending this in

the thing i'm just saying these are the

ways in which the question can be

created

yeah so there you have it i'll see you

in the next lesson

bye