LSAT 156, Section 3, RC Passage 2, Paranormal

RC Passage 2 Explanation (Comparative)

PASSAGE TEXT: There are two extreme views concerning the role of science in human understanding. …

Paragraph Summaries

Passage A

1. There are extreme views about science: reductionists think all knowledge can be reduced to science, while traditionalists think science is only one source of knowledge. Dyson places himself closer to the traditional side.
2. Scientific studies of paranormal phenomena have failed, but Dyson doesn’t think that proves paranormal phenomena don’t exist. They may exist while still being inaccessible to scientific testing.
3. Dyson thinks careful anecdotal reports make paranormal phenomena plausible. Since these events seem tied to stress and strong emotion, they may disappear under controlled scientific conditions.
4. He suggests that paranormal phenomena and scientific testing may be complementary. Like wave and particle descriptions of light, both may be valid even if they can’t be observed at the same time.

Passage B

1. Dyson’s argument is ridiculous. Anecdotes aren’t science. Paranormal phenomena have been rigorously tested and the results are clear: psychic power doesn’t exist. Complementarity doesn’t apply here; either people can read minds or they can’t, and science has shown they can’t.

Analysis

It’s always helpful to read the little context bit before the passages. This is a clean debate. Passage B is a direct response to Passage A, which means the two authors’ points of disagreement are explicit and traceable, and the questions largely reward you for tracking them carefully rather than inferring much.

The entire disagreement comes down to one question: what does the failure of scientific experiments to detect paranormal phenomena prove?

• Dyson says it only proves that science couldn’t detect them, which isn’t the same as proving they don’t exist.
• Passage B says that’s exactly what it proves.

Neither author is confused. They simply hold opposite foundational commitments.

Dyson is a traditionalist who believes science has limits. The author of Passage B is a reductionist who believes science is the ultimate arbiter. This is the axis the whole debate turns on. The principle underlying Passage B but rejected by Dyson is that failure of detection in controlled conditions equals non-existence.

Watch how careful Dyson’s language is throughout (“may exist”, “apparently”, “tenable and plausible”). He’s not asserting that the paranormal is real. He’s asserting it’s possible and that science isn’t equipped to rule it out. Yet Passage B characterizes him as “convinced” that certain people exhibit paranormal powers. That’s what Question 7 asks about.

Dyson’s most ambitious claim is the complementarity reasoning in the last paragraph of Passage A. He’s borrowing a concept from quantum physics, where a particle genuinely has two mutually exclusive valid descriptions, and suggesting the paranormal might similarly coexist with science without being accessible to it.

Passage B rejects this flatly, and on reasonable grounds: complementarity describes a property of physical reality, not an escape hatch for unfalsifiable claims. Whether you find Dyson’s analogy compelling or not, you should notice that Passage B doesn’t really engage with it. It just dismisses it.