Question 14

The general belief that science resolves contradictions in favor of a single valid conclusion can lead to the dismissal of a scientific expert as a 'junk scientist.'

The author implies that the idealization of science, particularly the belief that scientific disputes should yield a single, clear answer, contributes to the labeling of experts as 'junk scientists' when they present conflicting views.

A) An expert misrepresents the conclusiveness of the data presented in support of a particular claim.

This option is incorrect because the dismissal of an expert as a 'junk scientist' is not primarily based on misrepresentation of data. Instead, it stems from the broader expectation of scientific consensus rather than individual misrepresentation.

B) An expert is asked to testify in a dispute that most nonscientists find overly technical.

This option is also incorrect, as difficulty in understanding scientific testimony by nonscientists does not inherently lead to the expert being dismissed as a 'junk scientist.' The issue revolves more around the perception of scientific certainty and consensus.

C) An expert is asked to testify in a dispute involving questions that arguably lie outside the realm of scientific knowledge.

This choice is incorrect because the dismissal of an expert as a 'junk scientist' is not directly related to the scope of the questions being asked. It focuses more on the expectation of unequivocal answers within the scientific community.

D) There is a general belief that science resolves contradictions in favor of a single valid conclusion.

This option is correct as it aligns with the author's argument that the idealization of science leads to the assumption that conflicting scientific opinions must indicate poor quality or bias. This belief can result in labeling one of the experts as a 'junk scientist' due to the perceived need for a definitive answer.

E) There is a general view that most scientists often manipulate evidence to achieve a desired outcome.

This option is incorrect because while there may be concerns about manipulation, it does not specifically relate to the expectation of scientific certainty that leads to the dismissal of experts as 'junk scientists.'

Conclusion

The core of the author's argument is that the idealization of science fosters a belief that scientific disagreements indicate poor science, leading to the unjust labeling of experts. Option D encapsulates this notion by highlighting the societal expectation for science to deliver singular, clear conclusions, a perspective that fails to recognize the complexities and debates inherent in scientific inquiry. All other options do not address the fundamental issue of how perceptions of scientific certainty can lead to dismissals of credibility.