2007 HSC Specimen Examination: Question 21: Scientific or Rational humanism? (1 Viewer)

[Ocoth]

The following is question 21 in the 2007 HSC Specimen Examination:

One basic need for humans is to understand their place in the universe. Their senses gather information from the outside world, which is then interpreted by their intellect. Humans appreciate that their place in the universe is established by facts that have been proven.

Which of the following best represents the position presented in the statement?
(A) Atheism
(B) Agnosticism
(C) Rational humanism
(D) Scientific humanism

(Page 36, (40 of 64), or 14 of the SORII paper)

Then in the mapping grid (Page 48 (52 of 64)) it states

Scientific humanism

as the

Content

for question 21.

However, we were given the question in an assessment and the answer was marked as Rational humanism. The explanation given by the teacher was the use of the word

intellect

infers that it is Rational humanism, and not Scientific.

I am still unsure. The last sentence to me sounds like Scientific humanism, the whole proven facts idea, and the Board of Studies mapping grid tends to be edging me in this direction. I am unsure which way I would answer if I was given the question again. The teacher also mentioned something about either a majority picking the way I did (Scientific), or a minority picking the answer it was marked as (Rational), an additional fact which is causing me to question the answer.

It would be good if the Board of Studies provided answers to their questions!

Any ideas?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The distinction is between using your rationality i.e. common sense/logical principles etc compared with any sort of empiricism which would make it Scientific. I would agree with you that it's scientific humanism due to:

Humans appreciate that their place in the universe is established by facts that have been proven.

It also mentions senses, again empiricism.

The problem comes from them not being mutually exclusive positions, but I'd say it's leaning further on the empiricist side.

intellect

Yes but intellect was only used as a means of interpreting that which we had recieved through our senses, it is not exactly 'inate' as hard rationalism would require, at the best such a statement is weak rationalism and fits quite fine within the confines of even a fairly strong empiricist philosophy.

 

[snapperhead]

Its scientific humanism...no question.

The 'intellect' aspect that your teacher seems to be hung up on belongs to sci. humanism as its an intellectual movement (not a rational movement) ie it lays emphasis on scientific method to understand that which occurs in the observable world. Rational humanism is that it 'just makes sense' ... Observable phenomenen (that has been analysed or interpreted) really dont come into it as such.

I think your teacher has read Mudge et al and is taking their statement that scientific humanism is directed towards "justice, equality and world peace" (p 486) a little too literally........ ie thats its ethical humanism (which it is also known as..but I dont get why!)


One *could* argue that its neither humanist options because of "Humans appreciate that their place in the universe is established by facts that have been proven."...could also be atheism (but I would argue Humanism in this context)

 

[Rachel 555]

Question 21 in the specimen paper I know for a fact is scientific humanism because in the marking guideline it has

Questin 21 1 mark, content scientific humanism, syllabus outcomes H1,H8 band 5-6 so if the question content is scientific humanism than the answer must be scientific humanism

Hope that helps