Consider the following statements : 1. Scientific investigation depends on commitment to practical ideals. 2. Honesty is particularly important in science. Select the correct answer from the codes given below :
- (a)Both statements 1 and 2 are correct.
- (b)Both statements 1 and 2 are incorrect.
- (c)Statement 1 is correct, 2 is not correct.
- (d)Statement 1 is correct, 2 is unpredictable.
Correct — A, both statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 1 is right because scientific investigation is not pure abstract logic: it only works if the investigator actually holds to a set of working (practical) commitments — evidence in preference to authority, accuracy in measurement and record-keeping, results that another laboratory can reproduce, and willingness to let a favoured claim be refuted by data. Drop those commitments and the method stops delivering reliable knowledge, however clever the theory. Statement 2 is right because science is cumulative and mutually dependent: every researcher builds on thousands of reported results that she cannot personally re-check, so a single fabricated or shaded finding contaminates everything later built on it. Peer review and replication — science's self-correcting machinery — assume that the published report is a truthful account of what was actually done and observed; that is why fabrication, falsification and plagiarism are the defining forms of research misconduct, and why the same idea appears in our Constitution as the Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(h) 'to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform'.
- (b)Both statements 1 and 2 are incorrect. — Neither statement is objectionable. Statement 1 restates the ordinary description of scientific practice as a discipline of working commitments (accuracy, reproducibility, openness to refutation), and statement 2 restates the near-universal position of research-ethics codes that honesty is the load-bearing virtue of science. Calling both wrong would require holding that scientific work needs no commitments at all.
- (c)Statement 1 is correct, 2 is not correct. — This rejects the more secure of the two statements. Honesty is not merely one virtue among many in science — it is the precondition for the system to work at all, because scientific claims are accepted on the strength of reported evidence that most readers cannot independently regenerate. Every major code of research integrity therefore places honest reporting at its centre.
- (d)Statement 1 is correct, 2 is unpredictable. — 'Unpredictable' is not a valid verdict on a statement in a statement-evaluation question — a statement can be correct or incorrect, not unpredictable. Even setting the wording aside, statement 2 is a settled and non-controversial claim, so nothing about it is left open.
Beyond formulae and facts, science is a social practice governed by norms. The sociologist Robert K. Merton set these out in 1942 as universalism (a claim is judged on evidence, not on who made it), communalism (findings are shared, not hoarded), disinterestedness (the researcher does not shape the result to suit a personal stake) and organised scepticism (every claim is open to challenge). These are exactly the 'practical ideals' statement 1 points at. Honesty is the one that carries all the others: replication, peer review and citation all presuppose that the reported observation is what was actually seen.
Questions like this are judgement items, not data items — there is no fact to recall, so the test is whether you can read two ordinary descriptive claims without inventing a trap. Both statements here are standard textbook descriptions of how science operates, so 'both correct' is the natural reading. Option (d) also gives itself away on form: it offers 'unpredictable', which is not one of the two verdicts a statement can receive, so it can be struck out before you even weigh the content.
- Article 51A(h) of the Constitution makes it a Fundamental Duty of every citizen 'to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform' — inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation.
- The phrase 'scientific temper' was popularised in India by Jawaharlal Nehru in The Discovery of India (1946), where he presented it as a habit of mind rather than a body of knowledge.
- Robert K. Merton's 1942 norms of science — universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, organised scepticism — are the classic statement of the working commitments that scientific investigation depends on.
- Fabrication (inventing data), falsification (manipulating data or results) and plagiarism are the three internationally recognised categories of research misconduct — all three are failures of honesty, not of technique.
Both are standard descriptions of scientific practice, so the answer is (a). Option (d) fails on form too — 'unpredictable' is not a verdict a statement can receive.
- Assuming that a value-laden or 'philosophical' statement must be the wrong one — UPPSC does set statements that are simply true.
- Falling for a fourth option that offers a non-verdict such as 'unpredictable' or 'cannot be determined' where the question asked only whether statements are correct.
- Mixing up 'scientific temper' as a Fundamental Duty (Article 51A(h)) with a Fundamental Right or a Directive Principle.
UPPSC folds the nature-of-science and general-aptitude material into two-statement judgement items in Paper-I, while UPSC tests the same territory through Article 51A(h) Fundamental Duty lists in Polity and through integrity/probity questions in GS-IV.
Two important characteristics of a hypothesis are that it should be testable and that it should be stated in a manner that it can be refuted. Which one of the following hypotheses fulfils these characteristics?
- (a) Intelligent persons have good memory
- (b) Some birds are animals
- (c) Some businessmen are dishonest
- (d) All men are mortal
Answer(a) Intelligent persons have good memory
The same concept from the other side — UPSC asks what makes an investigation scientific (testability and openness to refutation), which is precisely the 'commitment to practical ideals' statement 1 asserts.
Which of the following is/are among the Fundamental Duties of citizens laid down in the Indian Constitution? 1. To preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture 2. To protect the weaker sections from social injustice 3. To develop the scientific temper and spirit of inquiry 4. To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) 1, 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer(c) 1, 3 and 4 only
The constitutional counterpart of the same idea — Article 51A(h) turns the scientific temper and the spirit of inquiry described in this UPPSC question into a Fundamental Duty.
Under the Constitution of India which of the following is NOT a Fundamental Duty ?
- (a) To vote in General Election
- (b) To develop the scientific temper
- (c) To safeguard public property
- (d) To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideas
Answer(a) To vote in General Election
UPPSC's own Polity route into the same value — 'to develop the scientific temper' appears there as a listed Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(h).
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Fundamental Duty 'to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform' is contained in which clause of Article 51A?
- (a)Article 51A(f)
- (b)Article 51A(g)
- (c)Article 51A(h)
- (d)Article 51A(j)
Answer(c) Article 51A(h) — 51A(f) is the composite culture, 51A(g) the natural environment and 51A(j) striving towards excellence.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The idea that a proposition counts as scientific only if it can in principle be refuted by observation is most closely associated with :
- (a)Thomas Kuhn
- (b)Karl Popper
- (c)Auguste Comte
- (d)Robert K. Merton
Answer(b) Karl Popper — falsifiability is Popper's demarcation criterion; Kuhn wrote on paradigm shifts, Comte on positivism and Merton on the social norms of science.