The author uses the example of medical advances in lowering infant mortality across the world to illustrate how the pursuit of knowledge can be harmful if not combined with wisdom. In the given passage, the author mentions that while research in scientific medicine has significantly reduced the infant death-rate in many regions, this success has had unintended consequences, such as making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in densely populated areas. This demonstrates that without a comprehensive understanding or wisdom, scientific achievements can lead to negative repercussions. Therefore, the correct answer is medicine that lowers infant mortality across the world.
To determine the factors contributing to wisdom according to the author, we need to analyze the passage carefully. The author begins by emphasizing the importance of a sense of proportion, which is described as the ability to consider all important factors of a problem and to assign them appropriate importance. This sense of proportion is vital but challenging to maintain due to the complexity and specialization in various fields.
The author continues to describe 'wisdom' as the necessary complement to knowledge, using the examples of medical research and atomic studies to highlight the potential negative implications of knowledge when not paired with wisdom. Wisdom is described further as a comprehensive vision encompassing more than intellect, with a necessary awareness of human life's ends. This is illustrated through the study of history and the pitfalls of viewing it through personal biases.
Moreover, the essence of wisdom is discussed as emancipation from 'the tyranny of the here and now.' This means overcoming personal biases and emotions tied to immediate circumstances. The author links wisdom to the growth of impartiality, achieved by understanding things remotely and evaluating them appropriately in our feelings.
Finally, the author argues that wisdom involves integrating specialized knowledge with broader intellectual perspectives. Wisdom becomes increasingly necessary as knowledge and skills expand, posing potential dangers if paired with unwise intentions. In summary, the factors contributing to wisdom according to the author are comprehensiveness, a sense of proportion, awareness of the end of human life, and emancipation from the tyranny of the present. The correct answer is:Comprehensiveness, a sense of proportion, awareness of the end of human life, emancipation from the tyranny of the present.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.