kaulnikhil wrote:Please find the Rc attached .got a doubt with 23. Please put in reasons for answer of Q.23
The OA is correct.
It is clear that scientists accept that mathematicians uncover literal truth (as the author points out several times, that's what mathematicians are known for doing.) But do scientists think that the literal truth of an argument can be made clear
only in a mathematical context? Yes, we can infer that scientists make this assumption because the opening sentence of the second paragraph tells us that outside of a mathematical context (ie, in
reality), science
deals with imperfectly understood approximations. Thus, in the real world the literal truth of an argument may not be made clear. (There is also more evidence to support this inference when towards the end of the passage, when the author discusses how literal and precise arguments--the mathemeticians' domain--are anathema to physicists).
And, in fact, the third paragraph discusses a paradoxical danger of the interrelationship between scientists and mathematicians: scientists work in reality and provide to mathematicians fuzzy or ill-defined situations; mathematicians then take these ill-defined situations and make assumptions in order to treat these ill-defined situations as well-defined so that they are able to do their math (math requires well-defined situations); mathemeticians then hand their conclusions to scientists and scientists may rely on those conclusions even though they were based on the assumptions that the mathemeticians made.
BTW, I really enjoyed this passage. What's the source?
