Question:hard

Deborah Mayo is a philosopher of science who has attempted to capture the implications of the new experimentalism in a philosophically rigorous way. Mayo focuses on the detailed way in which claims are validated by experiment, and is concerned with identifying just what claims are borne out and how. A key idea underlying her treatment is that a claim can only be said to be supported by experiment if the various ways in which the claim could be at fault have been investigated and eliminated. A claim can only be said to be borne out by experiment, and a severe test of a claim, as usefully construed by Mayo, must be such that the claim would be unlikely to pass it if it were false.

Her idea can be explained by some simple examples. Suppose Snell's law of refraction of light is tested by some very rough experiments in which very large margins of error are attributed to the measurements of angles of incidence and refraction, and suppose that the results are shown to be compatible with the law within those margins of error. Has the law been supported by experiments that have severely tested it? From Mayo's perspective the answer is 'no' because, owing to the roughness of the measurements, the law of refraction would be quite likely to pass this test even if it were false and some other law differing not too much from Snell's law true. An exercise I carried out in my school-teaching days serves to drive this point home. My students had conducted some not very careful experiments to test Snell's law. I then presented them with some alternative laws of refraction that had been suggested in antiquity and mediaeval times, prior to the discovery of Snell's law, and invited the students to test them with the measurements they had used to test Snell's law; because of the wide margins of error they had attributed to their measurements, all of these alternative laws pass the test. This clearly brings out the point that the experiments in question did not constitute a severe test of Snell's law. The law would have passed the test even if it were false and one of the historical alternatives true.

As per Mayo's perspective, which of the following best defines the phrase 'scientific explanation'?

Show Hint

Recall what makes a test 'severe' in Mayo's sense, and think about which option matches that, not just detail or volume of testing.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
  • One which is most detailed in its explanation of natural phenomena.
  • One which has been thoroughly tested by scientific experts.
  • One which survives examinations better than other explanations.
  • One which refutes other explanations convincingly.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Mayo's whole argument rests on one idea: a claim only counts as scientifically validated if the test it passed was severe, meaning the claim would likely have failed that test had it been false. The Snell's law story shows what happens when a test is not severe: several rival, even ancient and wrong, laws all passed the same rough test. So a scientific explanation, in Mayo's sense, needs more than surviving a test, it needs to have beaten out rival explanations under a strict check. Go through the options with that bar in mind.

  1. most detailed in its explanation of natural phenomena: detail has nothing to do with Mayo's criterion. A very detailed explanation could still fail a severe test, and a simple one could pass it. This option is off target.
  2. thoroughly tested by scientific experts: this sounds plausible but misses the point, the Snell's law example was tested by students, not experts, yet the real issue was that the test itself was too loose, not who ran it. Testing volume or authority is not Mayo's actual standard.
  3. survives examinations better than other explanations: this comes close, but surviving better allows for a case where several explanations survive about equally well, exactly what happened with the rough Snell's law test. Mayo wants something stronger than a relative edge.
  4. refutes other explanations convincingly: this matches Mayo's bar exactly. A severe test is one that would fail a claim if it were false, which in practice means it rules out, or convincingly refutes, the rival explanations that could have explained the same data.

Since detail, tester identity, and relative survival all fall short of Mayo's actual requirement, and only refuting other explanations convincingly matches the idea of a severe test, that is the correct definition.

Let's summarize:

  • Mayo's bar is a severe test, one the claim would likely fail if false, not detail or volume of testing.
  • The Snell's law example shows several explanations can survive a weak test together, so surviving better is not strong enough either.
  • Only convincingly refuting rival explanations matches Mayo's real standard for a scientific explanation.

So the best definition, as per Mayo's perspective, is an explanation which refutes other explanations convincingly.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension


Questions Asked in XAT exam