Video Explanation

Text Explanation

Answers: (A), (D), (H)

Feyermahn finds fault with Galileo for not being completely rational, but he doesn't place all of the blame only on Galileo. Rather, his contention is that all of scientific thought is built on human endeavor, which is susceptible to biases and therefore not entirely rational. For the first blank we want words showing that Feyermahn is not criticizing only Galileo. ‘Exclusively implicate’ works best.

The second sentence implies that Galileo is not perfectly rational, and thus ‘found wanting’, which means lacking, works best. ‘Dismissed as inconsequential’ is too extreme. The sentence is only implying that Galileo came up short. The third sentence moves to modern chroniclers of science, who Feyermahn urges to be aware of the human weaknesses of scientists. Those writers of science who choose not to would be remiss, or negligent. ‘Contrarian’ implies a conscious obduracy that is not supported by the context.

FAQ: Why is "partially repudiate" incorrect?

A: "Repudiate" means roughly to go against or to deny the truth or validity of something. So repudiate does kind of fit, but the word that throws everything off is the word "partially."

Feyermahn's criticism of Galileo's scientific rationalism brings into question the entire foundation and history of western scientific thought: 

"does not ____________ the Italian astronomer, but rather the very edifice of Western thought."

That is a pretty big thing- it's basically everything!

"Partially" means only a part, not the whole. For example, if you only write the introduction for your GRE essays but not the body or conclusion, you only did a part of the work. You did not do all of the work. Thus, you "partially" did the essay. 

To say that Feyermahn "partially repudiated" Galileo would be to say he only questioned or denied part of Galileo. But we know from the rest of the passage that he called into question both Galileo's entire body of scientific work and the entire historical view of western science. So partially repudiated just doesn't fit the blank. 

FAQ: What does "the most ostensibly Apollonian endeavors" mean? 

A: "Ostensibly" means apparent or obvious. "Apollonian" means rational or having to do with rationality. So "the most ostensibly Apollonian endeavors" means the most apparently rational endeavors. 

FAQ: What does "the sweep of science" mean" 

A: The "sweep" of something means the whole thing or the entire thing. So "the sweep of science in the last 300 years" means that the entirety of science over 300 years is being referred to. 

FAQ: I'm having a very hard time understanding what these sentences mean. Could you clarify them for me? 

A: This is definitely hard to understand! Let's start with the first sentence: 

Heinrich Feyermahn, in insisting that Galileo did not fully uphold the tenets of scientific rationalism, does not ____________ the Italian astronomer, but rather the very edifice of Western thought.

Heinrich Feyermahn insists that Galileo did not fully uphold the tenets of scientific rationalism. That is to say, Feyermahn believes that Galileo did not practice the basic principles of scientific rationalism. Although he makes this claim, Feyermahn does not exclusively implicate Galileo. Instead, he is implicating the entire complex system of Western thought itself.

For if Galileo is the purported exemplar of rational thinking, and yet is ____________, then the history of science cannot be understood as an endless succession of scientists carrying out their work free of all-too-human biases.

 Feyermahn implicates all Western thought because Galileo is supposed to be part of an endless succession of scientists who carry out their work free of human biases. Not only is he part of this succession of scientists, but Galileo is claimed to be an exemplar of rational thinking itself. If we say he did not practice scientific rationalism and we compare others to Galileo as an exemplar, then others, too, were not upholding the basic tenets of scientific rationalism.

Thus, Feyermahn admonishes, in faithfully chronicling the sweep of science in the last 300 years, historiographers would be ____________ not to include the human foibles that were part of even the most ostensibly Apollonian endeavors.

Knowing all of this, Feyermahn reprimands historiographers. These historians, who faithfully chronicle the sweep of science in the last 300 years, would be negligent to not also include the the human shortcomings that were part of even the most apparently rational, ordered, and self-disciplined tasks (the "ostensibly Apollonian endeavors")