Which is generally easier to accomplish: proving or disproving a hypothesis?

 In general, disproving a hypothesis is usually considered easier to accomplish than proving one. The reason for this lies in the logical foundation of scientific inquiry called the principle of falsifiability, proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. According to this principle, for a hypothesis to be scientifically valid, there must be some possible observation or experiment that could prove it false.

Disproving a hypothesis often requires just one clear counterexample or piece of evidence that contradicts the predictions made by the hypothesis. If such evidence is found, the hypothesis can be confidently rejected.

Proving a hypothesis, on the other hand, is more challenging because it usually requires demonstrating that the hypothesis holds true in all possible scenarios without exception, which can be nearly impossible in practice. Science often operates by accumulating substantial evidence supporting a hypothesis, which allows researchers to accept it as a working theory, but absolute proof is generally elusive.