To what extent do scientists rely on either confirming or falsifying a hypothesis? Is either matter ever straightforward? What does this tell us about the nature of the scientific endeavour?

One of the main problems associated with the scientific method is that although the methods we adopt are objective , the implementation of the methods by humans aren't .  When a hypothesis is laid , the scientist is for it or against it , based on personal preferences , there is no absolute neutrality due to the characteristics of human nature . What happens then is that a person who is supporting the hypothesis will try to present only the successful data and cover up the unsuccessful data . Yes , the person is presenting the truth , however I think  this is half truth and it is more dangerous than white lies, On the other hand a person who is against the hypothesis will try to present data that shows that the hypothesis is wrong .

Another problem that plagues hypothesis testing is the range of data that can be tested within it . In order to prove the objectivity of the observation , a range of controlled variables is selected in order to prove that the result from the observation remains constant . In pursuit of the range of the variables we often come across a low range of variables and a high range of variables . Hence most of the result we get are relative results to a fixed notion in the universe.

One of the most important hindrances to the scientific method in order to conduct a experiment is that sometimes we don't have the adequate resources both physical and knowledge to successfully pursue a scientific investigation .

On one level we are trying to prove or disprove what we think maybe right or wrong . On another level I believe that in trying to prove or disprove what is right or wrong we often miss the major discoveries that are lying at hindsight . and hence when we come across these discoveries we believe that they are "breakthroughs in science " whereas they have been just lying around the whole time and we havent been able to give a good thought . A perfect example I believe to prove my point is the discovery of gravity . Gravity is an important concept , yet Newton was busy trying to prove that the derivative of sin (x) is cos (x) that when he observed an apple falling from a tree he believed it was because of a force . The discovery of gravity is a naive tale yet we regard as one of the greatest achievements of all time because we were too busy trying to prove something we thought was right or wrong .