TEXT D Theories are like apples;
there are good ones and there are bad ones. A good apple is flavorful and
nutritious. A good theory is one that we have good reason to believe is true, or
at least likely to be true. Apples have all sorts of features that are
indicative of goodness and that can be used at the store for making smart
choices. An apple’s color, shininess, shape, and firmness are related to its
flavor and food value. Similarly, theories have features that are indicative of
their truth, and the task of justification is to identify these features and use
them to guide choices as to which theories to believe. In this way, responsible
theory choice and responsible science are not unlike responsible shopping. The
big difference is that you get to go home and eat the apple and find out if you
were right and it really does taste good. With theories, however, there is no
feature that is the taste of truth, at least not that we get to sample. There
are only features that indicate truth. You never get to go home and see
unambiguously that atomic theory, for example, is true. But you do the best you
can. Theories have lots of different properties and can differ
one from another in a variety of different ways. A few have been mentioned
already, namely the degree of generality and hypothetical status of a
theoretical claim. An account of the properties of a theory is an answer to the
inquiry, "So tell me what this theory is like." There are plenty of things to
say, that is, plenty of features to mention. There is the feature of how it was
discovered, by whom, at what time of day. Some theories have the feature of
being proposed by Einstein; some lack his feature. Some have the feature of
being liked by Einstein; some don’t. There are also features of the content of a
theory or of its form. Being logically consistent is a feature of form. Making
reference to action at a distance, or to evil spirits, or to gluons are distinct
features of content. There are even pragmatic features. Some theories are likely
to be money-makers; others are not. Clearly, some of these
features of theories are irrelevant to an analysis of scientific knowledge and
irrelevant to doing science. We want to focus on the important features, those
that meet the following two criteria. First, they must be relevant to the
likelihood of the theory being true. That is, they must be reliable indicators
of truth so that our seeing whether the feature is present or not will be part
of our warrant for believing the theory. Some theories have the property that
you learned them on a Tuesday, but that is unimportant because it is neutral to
their being true or false. Some theories have the property of describing goblin
maintenance men to keep the world in good working order. That’s an important
feature because it helps us decide whether the theory is true or
false. The second criterion of importance is that the property
is something we can in fact evaluate. The information must be accessible to us
if it is to be of any use. To get back to apples for a moment, even if it’s true
that apples with darker seeds taste better, this isn’t any help there in the
store where information about the seeds isn’t available. Similarly, a theory
about the demise of dinosaurs is true if it is an accurate picture of the past
events, but the feature of being an accurate picture is not something we can
evaluate. We can’t see what this theory is a picture of, and so we can’t assess
its accuracy. Much as we would like to use accuracy-of-picture or
correspondence-to-facts as features that indicate truth, information about these
features is unavailable. Features that are important to the justification of
theories must be both truth-conducive and accessible. It can be inferred from this passage that ______.
A.all the features that a theory has are not important B.only accessible features of a theory are important C.the accessible features of a theory must be very important D.the theory about the demise of dinosaurs is false