anuramm wrote:
Some philosophers of science claim that no serious scientific theory can be tested experimentally without taking for granted some other body of scientific beliefs, for we cannot interpret any experimental results without relying on such beliefs.
If this is true, then which of the following conclusions seems most likely?
A) Any particular scientific theory can be consistently retained, even in the face of apparently incompatible evidence, if we are willing to give up certain other scientific beliefs.
This is possible since then some experiments can be made relevant by procuring experimental data from other theories that are not tested out
Therefore let us hang on to it
anuramm wrote:
B) Experimental evidence is really irrelevant to scientific theorizing.
This is a oversimplification that has to be avoided and uses strong language that Gmat doesn't encourage
anuramm wrote:
C) Experimental evidence is more relevant to the testing of scientific theories than to their initial formulation.
This is also a implication that is cannot be decided with the fiven premise of the argument
anuramm wrote:
D) Experimental evidence is more relevant to the initial formulation of scientific theories than to their testing..
Similar reasoning as C
anuramm wrote:
E) The best scientific theories are those which are formulated in such a way as to be subject to conclusive experimental refutation.
it never stated the same the term 'best' was never quoted in the argument and is completely subjective hence we are leaving the same out
Therefore IMO A