"Once a man’s understanding has settled on something, …it draws everything else also to support and agree with it. And if it encounters a large number of more powerful countervailing examples, it either fails to notice them, or disregards them, …."
I suggest that anyone writing a grant proposal or just thinking about starting a scientific project read this thoughtful piece by . How we get trapped by hypothesis-driven science, big science issues, and the question/model alternative.
Maybe it's more a question than hypothesis? Have you encountered 's 'A Critique of the Hypothesis, and a Defense of the Question, as a Framework for Experimentation '? Also discussed in his article in