Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to

Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective
approach to studying the mind outdated and
ineffectual. For them, the attempt to describe the
sensation of pain or anger, for example, or the
(5) awareness that one is aware, has been surpassed by
advances in fields such as psychology, neuroscience,
and cognitive science. Scientists, they claim, do not
concern themselves with how a phenomenon feels from
the inside; instead of investigating private evidence
(10) perceivable only to a particular individual, scientists
pursue hard data—such as the study of how nerves
transmit impulses to the brain—which is externally
observable and can be described without reference to
any particular point of view. With respect to features of
(15) the universe such as those investigated by chemistry,
biology, and physics, this objective approach has been
remarkably successful in yielding knowledge. Why,
these philosophers ask, should we suppose the mind to
be any different?

(20) But philosophers loyal to subjectivity are not
persuaded by appeals to science when such appeals
conflict with the data gathered by introspection.
Knowledge, they argue, relies on the data of
experience, which includes subjective experience. Why
(25) should philosophy ally itself with scientists who would
reduce the sources of knowledge to only those data that
can be discerned objectively?

On the face of it, it seems unlikely that these two
approaches to studying the mind could be reconciled.
(30) Because philosophy, unlike science, does not progress
inexorably toward a single truth, disputes concerning
the nature of the mind are bound to continue. But what
is particularly distressing about the present debate is
that genuine communication between the two sides is
(35) virtually impossible. For reasoned discourse to occur,
there must be shared assumptions or beliefs. Starting
from radically divergent perspectives, subjectivists and
objectivists lack a common context in which to
consider evidence presented from each other’s
(40) perspectives.

The situation may be likened to a debate between
adherents of different religions about the creation of
the universe. While each religion may be confident that
its cosmology is firmly grounded in its respective
(45) sacred text, there is little hope that conflicts between
their competing cosmologies could be resolved by
recourse to the texts alone. Only further investigation
into the authority of the texts themselves would be
sufficient.

(50) What would be required to resolve the debate
between the philosophers of mind, then, is an
investigation into the authority of their differing
perspectives. How rational is it to take scientific
description as the ideal way to understand the nature of
(55) consciousness? Conversely, how useful is it to rely
solely on introspection for one’s knowledge about the
workings of the mind? Are there alternative ways of
gaining such knowledge? In this debate,
epistemology—the study of knowledge—may itself
(60) lead to the discovery of new forms of knowledge about
how the mind works.

1. Which one of the following most accurately summarizes the main point of the passage?

(A) In order to gain new knowledge of the workings of the mind, subjectivists must take into consideration not only the private evidence of introspection but also the more objective evidence obtainable from disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.
(B) In rejecting the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind, objectivists have made further progress virtually impossible because their approach rests on a conception of evidence that is fundamentally incompatible with that employed by subjectivists.
(C) Because the subjectivist and objectivist approaches rest on diametrically opposed assumptions about the kinds of evidence to be used when studying the mind, the only way to resolve the dispute is to compare the two approaches’ success in obtaining knowledge.
(D) Although subjectivists and objectivists appear to employ fundamentally irreconcilable approaches to the study of the mind, a common ground for debate may be found if both sides are willing to examine the authority of the evidence on which their competing theories depend.
(E) While the success of disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and physics appears to support the objectivist approach to studying the mind, the objectivist approach has failed to show that the data of introspection should not qualify as evidence.


2. Which one of the following most likely reflects the author’s belief about the current impasse between subjectivists and objectivists?

(A) It cannot be overcome because of the radically different conceptions of evidence favored by each of the two sides.
(B) It is resolvable only if the two sides can find common ground from which to assess their competing conceptions of evidence.
(C) It is unavoidable unless both sides recognize that an accurate understanding of the mind requires both types of evidence.
(D) It is based on an easily correctable misunderstanding between the two sides about the nature of evidence.
(E) It will prevent further progress until alternate ways of gaining knowledge about the mind are discovered.


3. The author’s primary purpose in writing the passage is to

(A) suggest that there might be valid aspects to both the subjective and the objective approaches to studying the mind
(B) advocate a possible solution to the impasse undermining debate between subjectivists and objectivists
(C) criticize subjectivist philosophers for failing to adopt a more scientific methodology
(D) defend the subjective approach to studying the mind against the charges leveled against it by objectivists
(E) evaluate the legitimacy of differing conceptions of evidence advocated by subjectivists and objectivists


4. According to the passage, subjectivists advance which one of the following claims to support their charge that objectivism is faulty?

(A) Objectivism rests on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection.
(B) Objectivism restricts the kinds of experience from which philosophers may draw knowledge.
(C) Objectivism relies on data that can be described and interpreted only by scientific specialists.
(D) Objectivism provides no context in which to view scientific data as relevant to philosophical questions.
(E) Objectivism concerns itself with questions that have not traditionally been part of philosophical inquiry.


5. The author discusses the work of scientists in lines 7–14 primarily to

(A) contrast the traditional approach to studying the mind with the approach advocated by objectivists
(B) argue that the attempt to describe the sensation of pain should be done without reference to any particular point of view
(C) explain why scientists should not concern themselves with describing how a phenomenon feels from the inside
(D) criticize subjectivists for thinking there is little to be gained from studying the mind scientifically
(E) clarify why the objectivists’ approach has been successful in disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and physics


6. The author characterizes certain philosophers as “loyal to subjectivity” (line 20) for each of the following reasons EXCEPT:

(A) These philosophers believe scientists should adopt the subjective approach when studying phenomena such as how nerves transmit impulses to the brain.
(B) These philosophers favor subjective evidence about the mind over objective evidence about the mind when the two conflict.
(C) These philosophers maintain that subjective experience is essential to the study of the mind.
(D) These philosophers hold that objective evidence is only a part of the full range of experience.
(E) These philosophers employ evidence that is available only to a particular individual.


7. Based on the passage, which one of the following is most clearly an instance of the objectivist approach to studying the mind?

(A) collecting accounts of dreams given by subjects upon waking in order to better understand the nature of the subconscious
(B) interviewing subjects during extremes of hot and cold weather in order to investigate a connection between weather and mood
(C) recording subjects’ evaluation of the stress they experienced while lecturing in order to determine how stress affects facility at public speaking
(D) analyzing the amount of a certain chemical in subjects’ bloodstreams in order to investigate a proposed link between the chemical and aggressive behavior
(E) asking subjects to speak their thoughts aloud as they attempt to learn a new skill in order to test the relationship between mental understanding and physical performance


8. Which one of the following is most closely analogous to the debate described in the hypothetical example given by the author in the fourth paragraph?

(A) a debate among investigators attempting to determine a criminal’s identity when conflicting physical evidence is found at the crime scene
(B) a debate among jurors attempting to determine which of two conflicting eyewitness accounts of an event is to be believed
(C) a debate between two archaeologists about the meaning of certain written symbols when no evidence exists to verify either’s claim
(D) a debate between two museum curators about the value of a painting that shows clear signs of both genuineness and forgery
(E) a debate between two historians who draw conflicting conclusions about the same event based on different types of historical data