Question Description
Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions for Questions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.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 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.Q. If John makes a statement, "I had two cups of coffee this morning and subsequently had a headache" followed by a claim - "The coffee caused me to have a headache", then would you, from the perspective of Deborah Mayo, agree with the claim and why?a)Yes, because this was the only time John had two cups of coffee and that can be narrowly identified as the cause for headache.b)Yes, because John has historically never had a headache when he has had one cup of coffee in the morningc)No, because experiments conducted on other people who had two cups of the same brand of coffee revealed that no one suffered from a headache subsequentlyd)No, because other causes of the headache which would make the statement false have not been considered and eliminatede)No, because scientists have long believed that coffee has been a cure for headaches and hence cannot cause headachesCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.