Evidence of a certain hypothesis or to claim whether the evidence is true and how strong the evidence is can depend upon the historical thesis. To support a theory, that is empirically incomplete, you need to examine the relationship it has with the facts when the hypothesis or evidence was formulated. However, this is not the case in some instances, when the evidence that supports the theory is empirically complete. When the evidence is empirically complete the theory can stand on its own because everything that is needed for that hypothesis can be found in the evidence. .
The evidence of a hypothesis will only become stronger and is found more reliable if the evidence from a prior historical thesis can be related to help back up or explain a theory that is empirically incomplete. For instance, a new drug that is designed to relieve allergies and sinus problems is tested for how well it works or how well it relieves the symptoms of its proposed purpose. When testing the drug's effectiveness, trying to claim the evidence that it relieves these symptoms for allergies, you must research prior to your testing for evidence and compare your evidence with previous evidence discovered through related testing of the same type of drug. This helps provide you with stronger evidence by either confirming that your evidence shows the same outcome or provides generally the same outcome but with some added new relief not found in prior drugs. This not only provides strength for your theory or for your evidence because the test displays the similar results as the test prior, but it also allows for new findings such as a new benefit or relief a of particular symptom to be stronger or proven stronger because of the relationship from the previous evidence. .
When the evidence that supports the theory is empirically complete, the need for prior historical evidence is not necessary. This is because all the evidence shown to support that hypothesis is only relevant within that theory.