I chose 5 as the answer, but the answer is 2. Is the reason why 5 can't be the answer that replacing an old solution with the new one doesn't make sense? The solutions might be accumulating, not replacing one by one. What do you think?
mo3-28
Q. What is the answer for the blank? 2
The essence of science is to uncover patterns and regularities in nature by finding algorithmic compressions of observations. But the raw data of observation rarely exhibit explicit regularities. Instead we find that nature’s order is hidden from us, it is written in code. To make progress in science we need to crack the cosmic code, to dig beneath the raw data and uncover the hidden order. I often liken fundamental science to doing a crossword puzzle. Experiment and observation provide us with clues, but the clues are cryptic, and require some considerable ingenuity to solve. With each new solution, __________________. As with a crossword, so with the physical universe, we find that the solutions to independent clues link together in a consistent and supportive way to form a coherent unity, so that the more clues we solve, the easier we find it to fill in the missing features.
① the depth of scientific experiments keeps us in awe
② we glimpse a bit more of the overall pattern of nature
③ the code-breaking process becomes increasingly mysterious
④ the regularity of nature is revealed in its entirety to the observer
⑤ we crack the cosmic codes one by one, replacing an old solution with the new one
It doesn't 'not make sense'. I's just not what the article says; there aren't always 'old solutions'; indeed, following the crossword analogy, there is no solution there at all until the solver cracks the code. Another thing against 5 is that 'with each new solution, we crack a code...' is pleonastic; but that doesn't stop people writing like that!Originally Posted by keannu
b
"pleonastic" is a big word for me. Could you tell me a simpler one?
Dictionary
"With each new solution" seems to imply that solutions accumulate one by one. So what you said, "there aren't always 'old solutions" needs considering. If you get answers to nature one by one, wouldn't the answers be called old or new over time?
But sometimes 'old solution' = 'no real solution at all'. (I don't want to pursue this point, which is getting dangerously close to religion.)
b
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks