Dowhatnow? Are you saying that the scientific method is poor at determining history? Data can be difficult to get to, so I suppose that, yes, in a sense, using the scientific method to derive the truth of history is more subject to error than deriving the truth of a mechanistic process governing physical behavior.
Your next sentence makes no sense.
If a hypotheses was true it would be a conclusion.
If it's fiction, one works to create a world where it's true.
But it starts as pure fiction.
The scientific method does nothing to determine events after they happen.
It observes events as they happen and predicts a future observation.
Even if the observation is confirmed, it may change at the next observation.
Science can only predict forward.
If we were to create life from scratch, we would not have proven how it happened in the past.
We would only be confirming that we did it yesterday. And it might not happen a second time either. See? It's all forward, and still