- DI & DS
- English Language
-
Intelligence & CR
- Alphabet & Number Ranking
- Analytical Reasoning
- Blood Relations Test
- Coding - Decoding
- Comparision of Ranks
- Direction Sense Test
- Mathematical Operation / Number Puzzles
- Series
- Sitting Arrangement
- Statement and Arguement
- Statement and Conclusion
- Statement and Course of Action
- Statement-Assumption
- Syllogism
-
Mathematical Skills
- Average
- Calender
- Clocks
- Geometry
- Height and Distance
- Logarithms
- Mensuration
- Mixtures and Alligations
- Number System
- Percentage
- Permutation and Computation
- Probability
- Profit and Loss
- Ratio and Proportion
- Set Theory
- Simple calculations
- Simple Equations
- Simple Interest and Compound Interest
- Time and Work
- Time, Speed and Distance
Loading
-
157.
To discover the relation between rules, paradigms, and normal science, consider first how the historian isolates the particular loci of commitment that have been described as accepted rules. Close historical investigation of a given specialty at a given time discloses a set of recurrent and quasi-standard illustrations of various theories in their conceptual, observational, and instrumental applications. These are the community's paradigms, revealed in its textbooks, lectures, and laboratory exercises. By studying them and by practicing with them, the members of the corresponding community learn their trade. The historian, of course, will discover in addition a penumbral area occupied by achievements whose status is still in doubt, but the core of solved problems and techniques will usually be clear. Despite occasional ambiguities, the paradigms of a mature scientific community can be determined with relative ease.
That demands a second step and one of a somewhat different kind. When undertaking it, the historian must compare the community's paradigms with each other and with its current research reports. In doing so, his object is to discover what isolable elements, explicit or implicit, the members of that community may have abstracted from their more global paradigms and deploy it as rules in their research. Anyone who has attempted to describe or analyze the evolution of a particular scientific tradition will necessarily have sought accepted principles and rules of this sort. Almost certainly, he will have met with at least partial success. But, if his experience has been at all like my own, he will have found the search for rules both more difficult and less satisfying than the search for paradigms. Some of the generalizations he employs to describe the community's shared beliefs will present more problems. Others, however, will seem a shade too strong. Phrased in just that way, or in any other way he can imagine, they would almost certainly have been rejected by some members of the group he studies. Nevertheless, if the coherence of the research tradition is to be understood in terms of rules, some specification of common ground in the corresponding area is needed. As a result, the search for a body of rules competent to constitute a given normal research tradition becomes a source of continual and deep frustration.
Recognizing that frustration, however, makes it possible to diagnose its source. Scientists can agree that a Newton, Lavoisier, Maxwell, or Einstein has produced an apparently permanent solution to a group of outstanding problems and still disagree, sometimes without being aware of it, about the particular abstract characteristics that make those solutions permanent. They can, that is, agree in their identification of a paradigm without agreeing on, or even attempting to produce, a full interpretation or rationalization of it. Lack of a standard interpretation or of an agreed reduction to rules will not prevent a paradigm from guiding research. Normal science can be determined in part by the direct inspection of paradigms, a process that is often aided by but does not depend upon the formulation of rules and assumption. Indeed, the existence of a paradigm need not even imply that any full set of rules exists.[1] What is the author attempting to illustrate through this passage?
(1) Relationships between rules, paradigms, and normal science.
(2) How a historian would isolate a particular ‘loci of commitment’.
(3) How a set of shared beliefs evolve in to a paradigm.
(4) Ways of understanding a scientific tradition.
(5) The frustrations of attempting to define a paradigm of a tradition.[2] The term ‘loci of commitment’ as used in the passage would most likely correspond with which of the following?
(1) Loyalty between a group of scientists in a research laboratory.
(2) Loyalty between groups of scientists across research laboratories.
(3) Loyalty to a certain paradigm of scientific inquiry.
(4) Loyalty to global patterns of scientific inquiry.
(5) Loyalty to evolving trends of scientific inquiry.[3] The author of this passage is likely to agree with which of the following?
(1) Paradigms almost entirely define a scientific tradition.
(2) A group of scientists investigating a phenomenon would benefit by defining a set of rules.
(3) Acceptance by the giants of a tradition is a sine qua non for a paradigm to emerge.
(4) Choice of isolation mechanism determines the types of paradigm that may emerge from a tradition.
(5) Paradigms are a general representation of rules and beliefs of a scientific tradition.asked in CAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
158.
In each question, there are four sentences. Each sentence has pairs of words/phrases that are italicized and highlighted. From the italicized and highlighted word(s)/phrase(s), select the most appropriate word(s)/phrase(s) to form correct sentences. Then, from the options given, choose the best one.
[1] The cricket council that was[A]/were[B] elected last March is[A]/are[B] at sixes and sevens over new rules.
The critics censored[A]/censured[B] the new movie because of its social inaccessibility. Amit’s explanation for missing the meting was credulous[A]/credible[B]. She coughed discreetly[A]/discretely[B] to announce her presence.
1) BBAAA
2) AAABA
3) BBBBA
4) AABBA
5) BBBAA[2] The further[A]/farther[B] he pushed himself, the more disillusioned he grew.
For the crowds it was more of a historical[A]/historic[B] event; for their leader, it was just another day. The old man has a healthy distrust[A]/mistrust[B] for all new technology. This film is based on a real[A]/true [B] story. One suspects that the compliment[A]/complement[B] was backhanded.
1) BABAB
2) ABBBA
3) BAABA
4) BBAAB
5) ABABA[3] Regrettably[A]/Regretfully[B] I have to decline your invitation.
I am drawn to the poetic, sensual[A]/sensuous[B] quality of her paintings. He was besides[A]/beside[B] himself with rage when I told him what I had done. After brushing against a stationary[A]/stationery[B] truck my car turned turtle. As the water began to rise over[A]/above[B] the danger mark, the signs of an imminent flood were clear.
1) BAABA
2) BBBAB
3) AAABA
4) BBAAB
5) BABAB
asked in CAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
159.
-
160.
-
161.
-
162.