"You have to “rule in” before you can “rule out.”"

Yes. And it is your knowledge, training, experience and the body of accepted knowledge in your field that provides you the ability to "rule in" (or postulate) plausible hypotheses based on the data. However, there are times when hypotheses are formed that are outside the accepted practice's knowledge base - that is when new or novel discoveries are made. The phlogiston "theory" had plenty of support and evidence for years until someone formed a hypothesis counter to the prevailing approach - a hypothesis based on data which became "evidence" when evaluated against the hypothesis.

"The answer may be that there is data that was available to be used as evidence. You examined a body, there were documented symptoms, other relevant and reliable data was available."

Yes. The pathologists narrowed down the pool of possible solution hypotheses by eliminating certain causes (based on data) from the large pool of possible causes of death. The lack of data suggesting a gunshot wound becomes evidence for the hypothesis "This patient died of a gunshot wound." The evidence refutes the hypothesis and therefore, the hypothesis having failed, data is reviewed against other hypotheses. (Postulating the "gunshot" hypothesis does not make it "invalid" because there is no evidence on which to formulate the hypothesis. It still has value in the overall process.) The pathologist (or microbiologist or whoever is considering the problem") Can, based on their knowledge, training, experience, research, etc. form hypothesis...If it wasn't a gunshot, maybe it was viral, bacterial, parasite, toxin....then compare data to those hypotheses. That's where the gene sequencing comes in. Eliminate the human, then look for something anomalous...NO known virus sequences - eliminate virus...etc.

But, the pathologist examining a body who has come in from a hospital after days of illness, in effect (I believe), forms and eliminates hypotheses so quickly, they may not even consciously realize it. When they examine the body, they do not state "I have a hypothesis that this patient died of a gunshot wound" but, as they are examining the body, they are going through a myriad of hypotheses that they are comparing against the data they are presented. It they see some data that, based on their knowledge, training and experience, looks remotely like a gunshot wound, then that hypothesis "moves up" and further data is sought to confirm or refute that hypothesis... while still looking for data to compare against other hypotheses.



Steve