ABSTRACT
It is not possible to disprove a hypothesis about nature. A logical argument called denying the consequent might appear to offer a means to obtain a definitive disproof of a hypothesis. But upon inspective, the logical argument fails because it rests on auxiliary assumptions and those auxiliary assumptions might be wrong rather than the hypothesis under investigation. That an apparent disproof of a hypothesis always requires auxiliary assumption is called the Duhem-Quine thesis. An alternative way to conceptualize the failure of denying the consequent to disprove a hypothesis is to recognize there is no guarantee that empirical observations will be interpreted correctly. Observation is never free from presuppositions. In using observation to disprove a hypothesis, it might be the presuppositions that are wrong rather than the hypothesis under investigation.
