Thus far we have drawn a picture of hypothetico-deductivism (HD), where one can predict outcomes from hypotheses, and where the validity of the hypotheses can be established by investigating whether the predicted outcomes actually occur. If the outcome does occur, then it shows the theory is correct; if the outcome doesn’t occur, then it shows the theory is false. This may sound straightforward on the surface, and this is the way science appears to be perceived by many in both the lay public and even by some scientists themselves, but, regrettably, such is not the case. This seemingly straightforward approach differs from how science is actually carried out, and this misperception is both a function of misrepresentation and misunderstanding. The reason for the misunderstanding will be explored later; here it is necessary to define why the testing of hypotheses cannot be as simple as it seems. A nuanced understanding of this issue could not be more essential for a proper understanding of science. It may seem odd, but there are serious problems with determining how evidence confirms a hypothesis and how evidence rejects it – indeed, it is not entirely clear or uncontroversial as to what exactly evidence is or can be claimed to be.