Maienschein claims that studying the history of science can improve science's efficiency. What does she mean by this? (Check BOTH that apply)

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, restating the prompt and options to ground the analysis: Maienschein argues that studying the history of science can improve science's efficiency, and the task asks to check BOTH statements that apply. The two options identified as correct are:
- Option A: Studying the history of science gives us an understanding of scientists' past mistakes so that we can avoid them in the future.
- Option C: Studying the history of science gives us perspective on science's current trajectory and allows us to differentiate between important and unimportant trends.

Now, evaluating each option in turn:
Option A — Understanding past mistakes to avoid them in the future. This aligns with a common claim about the value of history in science: by knowing historical errors, researchers can recognize patterns that led to faulty conclusions, misinterpretations, or methodological pitfalls, and thus design better experiments, standards, or criteria going forward. The logic is forward-looking and efficiency-enhancing because it helps prevent repetition of avoidable errors. This makes the statement plausible as a way history improves efficiency.

Option B — Studying how scientific terms develop over time to better understand their current meaning. While there is some truth to how terminology evolves, this option emphasizes linguistic development rather than directly tying to efficiency gains in scientific practice. It’s more about semantics and historical linguistics than about guiding experimental design, theory choice, or methodological improvements. Therefore, it does not strongly capture the efficiency claim Maienschein is making about history’s practical impact on scientific progress.

Option C — Gaining perspective on science's current trajectory and differentiating between important and unimportant trends. This speaks directly to strategic foresight: by situating present work within a longer arc of development, scientists can discern which currents are meaningful to pursue and which are transient or less consequential. This helps allocate time, resources, and attention more effectively, which is a core sense in which history can improve efficiency. Hence, this option aligns well with the intended claim.

Option D — When scientists study history, they broaden their area of specialization, increasing efficiency. This is a tempting but misleading idea. While historical knowledge can inform multiple domains, simply broadening one’s specialization does not automatically translate into greater efficiency in scientific practice. It could even dilute depth in a given field. Efficiency in science typically comes from improved methods, better prioritization, and clearer understanding of past failures and successes, not from unfocused broadening of scope. Therefore, this option is not a supported mechanism for efficiency through history.

In summary, the first option highlights learning from past mistakes to avoid repetition, which supports efficiency. The third option emphasizes strategic understanding of current directions and trend differentiation, another clear path to efficiency. The second option focuses on terminology development, which is informative but not directly tied to efficiency outcomes in scientific practice. The fourth option misframes specialization breadth as a driver of efficiency, which is not generally accurate. Therefore, options A and C are the ones that coherently reflect Maienschein’s claim about the efficiency gains from studying the history of science.

2261 HPS 0612 SEC1030 Exam 1 - Lecture Portion- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

Maienschein claims that studying the history of science can improve science's efficiency. What does she mean by this? (Check BOTH that apply)

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Based on the film watched in class, many groundbreaking researchers were killed from exposure to radiation.

Before the sciences was considered a legitimate course of study in universities, they were considered what?

Who first introduced Charles Darwin and evolution by natural selection to the Chinese?

Which of the following are arguments Maienschein discusses in favor of studying the history of science? (Check BOTH that apply)

In this week's lecture, we discussed a famous US-American scientist. His goal was to create a mathematical proof for the existence of retrogression within his scientific domain. True or False?

Question at position 7 TrueFalse

More Practical Tools for International Students

Exam Browser Assistant

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler