Automated debugging techniques have the potential to reduce developer effort in debugging, and have matured enough to be adopted by industry. However, one critical issue with existing techniques is that, while developers want rationales for the provided automatic debugging results, existing techniques are ill-suited to provide them, as their deduction process differs significantly from that of human developers. Inspired by the way developers interact with code when debugging, we propose Automated Scientific Debugging (AutoSD), a technique that given buggy code and a bug-revealing test, prompts large language models to automatically generate hypotheses, uses debuggers to actively interact with buggy code, and thus automatically reach conclusions prior to patch generation. By aligning the reasoning of automated debugging more closely with that of human developers, we aim to produce intelligible explanations of how a specific patch has been generated, with the hope that the explanation will lead to more efficient and accurate developer decisions. Our empirical analysis on three program repair benchmarks shows that AutoSD performs competitively with other program repair baselines, and that it can indicate when it is confident in its results. Furthermore, we perform a human study with 20 participants, including six professional developers, to evaluate the utility of explanations from AutoSD. Participants with access to explanations could judge patch correctness in roughly the same time as those without, but their accuracy improved for five out of six real-world bugs studied: 70% of participants answered that they wanted explanations when using repair tools, while 55% answered that they were satisfied with the Scientific Debugging presentation.