"The two assumptions in competition are like islands in a sea of
chaos, as different as life and death, matter and the void. One
cannot learn which is correct by pure logic; the answer will
eventually be reached through an accumulation of objective
evidence. Moral reasoning, I believe, is at every level
intrinsically
consilient with -- compatible with, intertwined with
-- the natural sciences. (I use a form of the word "
consilience"
-- literally a "jumping together" of knowledge as a result of the
linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to
create a common groundwork of explanation -- because its
rarity has preserved its precision.) "
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htmTutorial Answer 8
(b) is correct because, by Whewell's definition,
consilience refers to the gathering of
different forms of evidence (observation or experiment, from two or more separate
fields) that all converge, or can be grouped under, a single explanatory model. (a) is
not correct because it is too vague to say anything specific about consilience. (c) is
not untrue per se, but it does not distinguish consilience from many other forms of
reasoning such as deduction. And of course (d) cannot be correct if one or more of
the other answers is not correct.
OP
