because he couldn't explain what forces caused the continents to move... :D yup that's why
Observational evidence
Hypothesis is examined very closely to see what it predicts, and the predictions are then rigorously tested. If the predictions are not supported by the results of experiments, the hypothesis is rejected but if they are confirmed, the hypothesis is supported.
The answer to the question why is this: It can be rejected at a later date because it is falsifiable in nature if it is a good hypothesis. If you meant to ask HOW it can be rejected, the answer is by way of further experimentation that rules out some or all of the hypothesis as stated.
Scientists also gather at conferences to present new findings,Researchers who disagree about the data might gather discuss views.
A hypothesis is used to make predictions. Experiments are carried out to test these predictions. If the outcome of the experiment was not as predicted then the hypothesis is falsified. It is either rejected or modified. If the outcome of the experiment confirms the prediction then that provides some evidence that the hypothesis is true.Over time, after testing different predictions, there will be a significant amount of evidence in favour of the hypothesis, and all the main alternatives have been rejected. At that stage the hypothesis becomes a theory.
No, because the scientists did not have a hypothesis
No. The vast majority of geologists rejected Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift. it was not until more than 25 years after Wegener's death that the scientific community began to accept plate tectonics.
A hypothesis will be rejected if it fails the necessary testing required for it to become a scientific theory.
His evidence was incorrect.
Because Alfred Wegener couldn't specify the mechanism responsible for the movement of the continents, the continental drift hypothesis was rejected. This theory is now accepted science.
Scientist rejected Wegners hypothesis of continental drift at first because he did not have enogh evidence to support his theory. He failed to provide a suitable mechanism that could cause the continents to move.
Observational evidence
He could not explain how or why the continents moved.
Wegener couldn't explain how or why continents moved.
It is when you know that your hypothesis is wrong.
If a hypothesis does not explain an observation, it is rejected. A hypothesis is basically just an educated guess, so it could be wrong, or right.
You cant go through the full scientific method process.(Because the 7th step is drawing conclusions & checking whether your hypothesis is right or wrong.)