by gplaya123 Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:03 am
I was struggling with this one but
i guess everyone is on the same page.
it's all about
A vs B.
Now, many people probably have chosen A is because they unconsciously equivocated science with objectivism.
The first part of the second P is where A is derived. Yet, it's not correctly derived. If you carefully read it, the first part says something about philosophers not being persuaded by the way scientists do things. Thus, it is not about objectivism but about science itself. the word "objectivism" was not even mentioned in it.
B is the answer, which comes from the last part of second P, where it questions why should philosophers ally with scientists who reduce stuff that only can be discerned objectively?
Now, it's rather a rhetorical question, where it implies and foreshadows about the next paragraph: the reason Phil and Science aren't compatible is due to this REDUCTION using objectivism.
Hope this helps