When should an investigator discard a hypothesis?

An investigator should discard a hypothesis after it is refuted by valid testing. This principle is grounded in the scientific method, where hypotheses serve as testable predictions. When an investigator conducts rigorous and valid tests that produce results contradicting the hypothesis, it indicates that the hypothesis does not adequately explain the observations or the phenomena under investigation.

This rejection is essential to the integrity of the investigative process because it allows the investigator to refine their understanding of the event or phenomenon being studied. Continuing to hold onto a hypothesis that has been disproven could lead to confirmation bias, where an investigator might ignore or misinterpret data in favor of a belief that has already been invalidated.

Holding a hypothesis as uncertain or mainstreaming additional data that supports it without rigorous testing would not be adequate grounds for keeping a hypothesis in the investigative process. Similarly, simply collecting new data or corroborating existing data does not equate to the necessary test results required to refute or uphold a hypothesis effectively. Valid testing and empirical results are paramount in drawing conclusions in scientific investigations.