You are hiking in the mountains and find a shiny gold nugget. it might be the element gold, or it might be "fool's gold ," which is a nickname for iron pyrite,
fes2
which of the following physical properties do you think would determine if the shiny nugget is really gold?

a. appearance,
b. melting point,
c.. density, or
d. physical state

The answer is: letter c, density.

Explanation:

Gold is a chemical element that is very rare. It has a high atomic number and is represented by the symbol "Au."

The problem above is asking about the physical property of gold that will help you determine whether a shiny gold nugget is, indeed, real gold. Remember that you are hiking and not anywhere else in the world.

If you look at choice a, appearance. This is definitely incorrect because looking at the object will not be able to help you verify whether it is true gold or "fool's gold." Considering melting point (letter b) would also be hard because you will be needing the necessary equipment to melt gold. Gold melts at 1,064 degrees Celsius. So,this sounds very impractical. (thus, melting point is incorrect) Now, if you look at letter d, physical state, it goes the same way with appearance. It will only tell you that the object is solid and that's it.

Letter c, density is the answer because if you analyze the density of gold, which is 19.32 grams per cubic meter, it is far from the density of iron pyrite (fool's gold) which is 4.8-5 grams per cubic meter. This means that gold is denser or heavier than iron pyrite. You will definitely be able to tell which such big gap in their densities.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

b would be the answer